Timeline of Judge Boasberg Ruling on Trump Administration Deportations

Here’s a timeline of U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg’s key rulings and actions related to the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) in 2025, This focuses on the legal battle over Trump’s invocation of the 1798 law to deport alleged gang members, particularly from the Venezuelan group Tren de Aragua:

March 15, 2025

- Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act via a presidential proclamation, targeting alleged Tren de Aragua members for expedited deportation, claiming they represented an "invasion" or threat. Flights began departing to deport individuals, including to El Salvador.

- Judge Boasberg issued an initial temporary restraining order (TRO) in response to a lawsuit filed by the ACLU and Democracy Forward on behalf of five Venezuelan immigrants. This TRO blocked the deportation of these named plaintiffs for 14 days, citing "exigent circumstances" and the need to assess the legality of Trump’s AEA use.

- Later that day, during an emergency hearing, Boasberg expanded the TRO to cover all noncitizens in U.S. custody subject to the proclamation. He verbally ordered any planes in the air carrying deportees to return to the U.S., though this wasn’t formalized in the written order. Reports later confirmed flights had already landed in El Salvador and Honduras, raising questions about compliance.

March 16-17, 2025:

- Boasberg scheduled a hearing for March 17 to investigate the timeline of deportation flights after the administration claimed some deportees were removed before his written order was issued at 7:25 PM EDT on March 15. He expressed skepticism about the government’s compliance with his verbal order.

March 17, 2025:

- In a tense hearing, Boasberg pressed DOJ attorney Abhishek Kambli on why the administration didn’t halt flights as directed. He ordered the DOJ to submit a sworn declaration by March 18 noon EDT detailing flight timelines and justifying why a third flight, which took off after his written order, didn’t violate it. He remarked that the government’s stance seemed to be “we don’t care, we’ll do what we want.”

March 18, 2025:

- The DOJ resisted providing detailed flight information, citing national security and foreign relations concerns. Boasberg issued another order demanding answers by March 19 noon EDT, allowing sealed filings if necessary, and warned of potential consequences for non-compliance.

March 20, 2025:

- After the DOJ submitted a sealed response that Boasberg called “woefully insufficient”—relying on a vague ICE official’s declaration—he criticized the government for evading obligations. He set new deadlines: March 21, 10 AM EDT, for clarification on state secrets discussions, and March 25 for a final decision on invoking such privileges.

March 21, 2025:

- In a hearing, Boasberg expressed skepticism about the AEA’s use outside wartime, calling it “problematic and concerning” and an “unprecedented and expanded use.” He vowed to determine if the administration violated his March 15 order, accusing the DOJ of using “intemperate and disrespectful language” in filings. No immediate ruling was made on lifting the TRO, but he signaled discomfort with the policy’s implications.

March 24, 2025:

- Boasberg issued a 37-page opinion rejecting the Trump administration’s request to lift the TRO. He ruled that deportees were entitled to due process to contest their gang affiliation before removal, citing historical precedent from World Wars I and II. He noted the “parlous” conditions in El Salvador’s CECOT prison and potential violations of the Convention Against Torture. This reaffirmed his March 15 block, clarifying it only applied to AEA-based deportations, not other immigration authorities.

March 31, 2025

While not directly tied to the AEA timeline, a court filing revealed the administration admitted to mistakenly deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia under the AEA on March 15 due to an “administrative error,” despite his protected status. This admission came amid Boasberg’s ongoing scrutiny, though it’s unclear if he directly ruled on this specific case by April 1.