Inside the ACLU's race to stop Venezuelans' deportation to Salvadoran prison
The American Civil Liberties Union's lead attorney described to ABC News the rapid pace of legal action that led to the extraordinary ruling from the Supreme Court early Saturday morning that blocks the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador.
Lee Gelernt said the ACLU began to learn Thursday night that the migrants could be moved from a detention center in Texas as early as that night, so they filed in the middle of the night.
'We just kept pushing and ended up filing in multiple courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, at 1 a.m. on Friday night, early Saturday morning, stopped the removals,' Gelernt said in an interview with ABC News. 'But it was touch and go for a long time.'
MORE: Van Hollen: 'I am not defending the man, I am defending the rights of this man to due process'
The ACLU says migrants held in the Texas detention center received a notice and were told they'd be removed in 12 to 24 hours.
'Under the Alien Enemies Act, you have been determined to be an alien enemy subject to apprehension, restraint and removal from the United States,' the notice reads, which was filed in court by the ACLU.
The document is written in English and says migrants can make a phone call, although it does say the notice will be read to the individual in a language they understand. It did not include any method to contest the order.
'The government is providing only 12 to 24 hours with a notice that was served in English that does not explain that people have the right to contest, nor tell them how to do it or how much time they have to do it,' Gelernt said. 'There is no argument whatsoever that these notice procedures comply with the Supreme Court's directive.'
The girlfriend of one of the migrants held in the detention center told ABC News he received a document that appeared to be the same one that the ACLU filed in court. She says he told her it was hard to understand.
She added that he said he and a group of detainees were taken to an airport near the facility on Friday and they were about to be deported. Then, he told her, once they arrived, an officer informed the group they were being sent back to the center and would not board the plane.
Gelernt said the stakes couldn't be any higher and that Kilmar Abrego Garcia -- the Salvadoran native living Maryland who was deported in March to a mega-prison in his home country -- isn't the only person who was 'erroneously' sent to the notorious CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador.
'They're unilaterally claiming that people are members of a gang, but not giving them the opportunity to go into court and show they're not. And we know that multiple, multiple people have been erroneously tagged as members of this gang, but once they get to the El Salvadoran prison, they may never get out for the rest of their life,' Gelernt said.
'It's critical that we give them hearings before we take such an extraordinary action," he added.
Inside the ACLU's race to stop Venezuelans' deportation to Salvadoran prison originally appeared on abcnews.go.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
32 minutes ago
- Fox News
Trump Polls Best on...Immigration
The Left is going to be furious over the latest polling on immigration… I'm Tomi Lahren, more next. By the looks of the overtaken streets in deep blue cities like LA, Chicago and New York, you may be tempted to think the president is underwater on his handling of illegal immigration…but NOPE! Actually, according to recent polling by CBS/YouGov 54% of US adults approve of the deportation effort compared to 46% who disapprove of it. This survey was conducted prior to the LA raids and riots but I'd venture to guess after looking at the absolute anarchy in the streets, foreign flags, and utter disregard for the rule of law, the approval numbers might actually tick UP! Of all the measures, President Trump polls BEST on immigration! This polling shouldn't be surprising, Donald Trump RAN on, and I argue, WON on immigration and mass deportations. He promised the largest mass deportation effort in American history to correct the Biden open border invasion and now he's following through. Democrats would be wise to adjust their radical open border views but I won't count on that one! I'm Tomi Lahren and you watch my show 'Tomi Lahren is Fearless' at Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
E&E News
35 minutes ago
- E&E News
Interior advances first offshore mineral lease in decades
The Interior Department on Thursday took a step toward launching what could be the first mineral lease in U.S. waters in more than 30 years. The department announced it plans to publish a request for information and interest in the coming days to mine the deep seas off of American Samoa, a U.S. territory in the Polynesia region of the South Pacific. Upon publication in the Federal Register, the agency will take public comment for 30 days. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a statement said the administration is putting 'America first' and moving to unlock vast stores of offshore minerals and ease the nation's reliance on countries like China. Advertisement President Donald Trump in April inked an executive order to boost deep-sea mining, part of a broader push to open the nation's land and waters to more mining and production of minerals.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
