Noem Orders Deportation Flights to El Salvador Despite Legal Rulings

The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem authorized the continuation of deportation flights carrying Venezuelan nationals to a prison in El Salvador, even after a federal judge issued a ruling to halt such actions. This revelation emerged from a court filing made on Tuesday, March 26, 2025, detailing the legal framework surrounding the controversial removals.

The Department of Justice indicated that Noem received legal advice suggesting that she could proceed with the deportations because the judge’s order was issued after the flights had already commenced. The Venezuelan nationals were deported under the Alien Enemies Act, a law that allows for such actions during wartime conditions. The filing stated, “After receiving that legal advice, Secretary Noem directed that the AEA detainees who had been removed from the United States before the Court’s order could be transferred to the custody of El Salvador.”

The implications of this decision are significant, as it involved the deportation of 137 Venezuelan men to a notorious prison facility known as the Terrorist Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador. These men were held in the facility for several months until negotiations were arranged between the Venezuelan government and the United States to facilitate their return.

On March 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued an emergency order mandating that the planes carrying the Venezuelans return to the United States. The judge highlighted that the deported individuals did not have the chance to challenge their removals, a situation the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) described as a violation of their due process rights.

This court filing marks a shift in the administration’s legal strategy. Initially, the government contended that since Boasberg’s order was verbal rather than written, it lacked enforceability. However, the recent filing argued against the need for contempt proceedings, insisting that the government’s actions were lawful and adhered to a reasonable interpretation of the court’s directive.

As the contempt investigation resumes, Judge Boasberg has expressed a commitment to uncovering the circumstances surrounding the deportations. He stated, “I certainly intend to find out what happened that day.” The ACLU, representing the deported men, urged the court to summon testimony from nine current and former officials from both the Homeland Security and Justice departments. They emphasized the importance of identifying all individuals involved in the decision-making process, regardless of their level of authority.

The situation continues to evolve as the court seeks clarity on the government’s actions and the legal implications for the deported individuals. As this case progresses, the broader implications of immigration enforcement practices and their adherence to judicial orders remain in focus.