Talk:March 2025 Venezuelan deportations

"violating the court order"

Whatever one thinks about whether or not the administration violated Judge Boasberg's order, there is a judicial process underway to determine exactly that. That process will surely involve appeals, likely up to SCOTUS. imo it's preferable to say the order was possibly violated. 2601:441:4B80:340:5C1A:9C0D:E606:CA23 (talk) 04:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed per RS. The article now says "possibly violated". Nowa (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Jerce Reyes Barrios

I added a new section for Jerce Reyes Barrios. I did so based only on a single source, but there seems to be a TON of news coverage about him right now.

I plan to add additional sources soon, and wouldn't mind help... Bob drobbs (talk) 16:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Operation Aurora

Heads up. It seems that these deportations are being done as a part of Operation Aurora.

But also, I haven't seen any sources making the connection there yet so we can't make that connection either.

I'll add it as a "see also" for now. Bob drobbs (talk) 19:36, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion It turns out the page for Operation Aurora is over on simple wikipedia, not the main space:

Operation Aurora

Any suggestions for what to do from here? Bob drobbs (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

You can use an interwiki link. (I only just became aware that this is possible a couple of days ago.) Looks like [[simple:Operation Aurora|Operation Aurora]] will work. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Timeline

I don't know that we'll want to add a timeline, but I figured I'd keep track here, while I'm reading info (times are Eastern):

3/14:

• Trump signs proclamation (source 1)

3/15:

• no later than 8am, ACLU and Democracy Forward file suit (source 2)
• 9:40am, Boasberg approves TRO for the 5 plaintiffs (source 3)
• no later than 11:30am, Boasberg schedules 5pm hearing to consider certifying the class (source 4, in the thread)
• ~2pm, Trump Admin. appeals the TRO for the 5 plaintiffs to the DCCA, and within an hour asks the DC Circuit to issue an "immediate administrative stay" pending appeal of the TRO (source 4 thread + )
• ~ 3pm, video recorded of detainees being taken from El Valle detention center, Raymondville, TX, to buses (source 5)
• a bit before 5pm, WH announces proclamation (source 3)
• 5pm, hearing starts re: certifying the class
• 5:26pm, first plane – GlobalX Flight 6143 – departs from Harlingen, TX (source 1)
• 5:44pm, second plane – GlobalX Flight 6145 – departs from Harlingen, TX (source 1)
• ~6:48pm, Boasberg tells the government lawyers in court “You shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States” (source 1, which also notes that at this point "one of the planes was over Mexico; a second was over the Gulf of Mexico ... and a third had not yet taken off")

(more complete quote: "So, Mr. Ensign, the first point is that I -- that you shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States, but those people need to be returned to the United States. However that's accomplished, whether turning around a plane or not embarking anyone on the plane or those people covered by this on the plane, I leave to you. But this is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately." source 6, a court transcript)

• 7:26pm, Boasberg's written order posted (source 1)
• 7:36pm, third plane – GlobalX Flight 6122 – departs from Harlingen, TX (source 1, which also notes that the Trump admin. has said that the deportees on this flight were not covered by Boasberg's order)
• between 7:30-9:50pm, the three planes land at Soto Cano air base in Honduras (reason unspecified, source 1)
• ~10pm, DCCA consolidates the two TRO appeals (source 3) (so at some point between 7-10pm, the government files an appeal of the second TRO)
• 11:39pm, plane 1 leaves Honduras (source 1)
• 11:43pm, plane 2 leaves Honduras (source 1)

March 16:

• 12:10am, plane 1 arrives in San Salvador, El Salvador (source 1)
• 12:18am, plane 2 arrives in San Salvador, El Salvador (source 1)
• 12:39am, plane 3 leaves Honduras (source 1)
• 1:08am, plane 3 arrives in San Salvador, El Salvador (source 1)

March 17:

• 5pm, court hearing re: whether the Trump admin violated Boasberg's order; government lawyer says no, but won't say more, citing “national security concerns” (source 1)

Trump admin. says that the 5 original plaintiffs have not been deported. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion Just a suggestion, but for the article I wonder if it make more sense to just have a few top really summarized bullet pointed highlights per day instead of the minute-by-minute minutiae.

e.g.

• March 14 Trump signs presidential proclamation 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act
• March 15 The ACLU and others file a lawsuit on behalf of the detainees, Judge Boasberg issues a temporary restraining order...

Bob drobbs (talk) 23:59, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

It could be that some/many of the details I added aren't due. It also could be that you and I are thinking about it differently because we're interested in different aspects of the article. Two main things that are influencing my thinking:

• I think it's likely that the article will eventually either move to a title that focuses on the court case, or that a court case article will split from this one. The timing of who knew what when and who did what when is legally significant, especially with respect to whether the government ignored Boasberg's orders.
• In the previous version, much of what's legally significant was in the Deportations section, and that makes no sense. But I also couldn't figure out how to move it into a Legal section without having the Deportations section fall apart.

Of the details that I just added, which would you keep and/or how would you place the info (even if not in that detail) into Legal vs. Deportation sections? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'll work on it. Sorry if the page currently seems to have a lot of undue detail. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

We agree that now that the deportations are done this will shift more toward being focused on the legal case and at some point a rename will be appropriate.

My thoughts were more toward the idea that articles are supposed to be summaries of what RS say, not necessarily every minor detail. Anyways.... it looks like it's already been cut down some.

And now that I'm thinking about this, maybe it would make sense to move toward dividing it up into 3 sections:

• Deportations
• Legal Issues - Contempt of court
• Legal Issues - Alien Enemies act

Bob drobbs (talk) 03:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed all of the bullets and some of the details, and then Starship.paint added back in some of the details I'd removed. When you say "dividing it up," what does "it" refer to? (Are you talking about the sections that come after the initial timeline?) FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Trump denies that he invoked the Enemy Aliens Act

Really not sure how to handle this. Should we make updates to the page above which says he invoked it? Is this just Trump being Trump? Is it legally significant?

For now, I just added one sentence at the bottom of the Legal Issues section. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:50, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I think we follow the RSs. It was announced that he invoked it, so they reported that, and now they're reporting that he denies signing it. So we include both and keep an eye out for how it unfolds. The WH identifies it as a presidential action, and it says

As President of the United States and Commander in Chief, ... NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. 21 et seq., hereby proclaim and direct as follows ... IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of March ...

I would think that it's legally relevant if he didn't actually sign it, as only the President is authorized to invoke it, and I assume that the plaintiffs will raise the issue. I also assume that the press secretary will be questioned about it.

Unrelated, here's a rundown of some of the reporting on specific people who were deported. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's the proclamation with a signature. It may be that it was signed with an autopen, which would be ironic, given that Trump previously claimed that autopen signatures aren't valid (which is false). So I guess now that it doesn't matter legally. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:37, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Is "I didn't sign it"/"actually he meant he didn't sign the original bill" an example of wp:TRUMPCRUFT? Do we even need to mention it in the article? Nowa (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Now that the white house has contradicted it,it does appear it might be TRUMPCRUFT or what I described above as "Trump being Trump". But there is an active confrontation between the Judge and Trump and his admin right now, and his denial that he signed the doc is a part of that.

So how about if we wait a few days, or maybe a week, to see how things pan out before getting rid of it? Bob drobbs (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

It's a little hard to know whether it's TRUMPCRUFT. I can see at least two possibilities: he okayed the text of the proclamation and its signing (even if it was signed with an autopen rather than by hand) and he was trying to get out of taking responsibility for the timing (in which case his denial might be moved to False or misleading statements by Donald Trump). Or he didn't okay the text / didn't okay the signing in any specific way (though he might have approved the idea), and he turned that over to other people in the administration (say, Stephen Miller), in which case it might be legally significant. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Deportees and WP:DUE

Jerce Reyes Barrios has gotten significant coverage, which the NY Post described as "viral".[1] So I think his section justifies multiple paragraphs.

For the other ones, I'd suggest waiting a bit. If they don't end up having significant coverage from more than one source, then maybe cut them down to a single short paragraph each? Bob drobbs (talk) 16:39, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Questions of public interest this article should clearly address

To me, these are some of the most obvious questions readers may have, given the tone of the reporting.

• Is this alleged to violate international, domestic, or human rights law and, if so, how?
• What information is being made public and what information is withheld by the U.S. and Salvadoran governments?
• Why were Venezuelans being deported to a third country rather than held in the U.S. (the destination of the migrants) or deported to Venezuela (the source of the migrants)?
• What is the evidence (their tattoos, state of origin within Venezuela, age, or sex?) and what are the charges (if any) against these migrants?
• Are there allegations of lack of due process, and how many (some? none?) of the detainees saw trial or were sentenced before being deported?
• How dangerous is Tren de Aragua and what do we know about its presence in the United States, including suspected location and degree of territorial control?

1101 (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

These seems like they're all very reasonable questions to have answered solidly and highlighted in the article.

Along with this, I don't have any concrete proposals for how to do this yet but I'm thinking we should perhaps break up the article into 3 major sections.

• The Deportations and the deported
• The Alien Enemies Act
• Trump Administration's contempt of court

And along with that last one, I think there are also a lot of readers with questions of of constitutional law if Trump just says "I'm going to ignore the judge because I can". Bob drobbs (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sourcing "Oopsie... too late" and government response

@Starship.paint removed this bit for linking to Twitter and using Salon as a reference. Fair enough on Twitter. I added that link to give readers convenient access to the primary source on top of secondary sourcing, but since I failed to make that clear and that part lacked a secondary source, I've restored the part without the Twitter link and with more careful sourcing, citing the BBC on the emoji.

I agree that Salon isn't a good source. I don't normally use it at all and I'd prefer not to do so now. I do think it's a tolerable source for a straightforward "X said Y" cite, and in this case it's the only source I've found that cites communications director Cheung in full and gives his name. The Washington Post, for example, doesn't cover the "Boom!" and doesn't name Cheung.

I further cited Salon as describing the "Boom!" gif as mocking the judge's decision. It was needed to clarify communications director Cheung's message for those of our readers who aren't conversant in internet memes.

I consider using Salon in this way bearable, so I've restored it and the passage cited to it. We should stay on the lookout for better sources. --Kizor 11:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Using a tweet as a source can be acceptable depending on how it's used, though it may not be DUE. Here's an AP article naming Cheung and referring to the gif but not using the word "boom." I wouldn't have a problem citing the AP article (to show that content about Cheung's response is DUE) and citing the tweet itself for the specifics of the tweet; or you can just describe the tweet in less detail, as the AP did. More generally, if an editor encounters content that's verifiable but the editor doesn't think that the source is a great source (but otherwise thinks it's due, ...), it's better to see if they can find a better source than just remove the content. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@Kizor: - if your best source is Salon, the content is not WP:DUE. Cheung is not that important. The content should not be added without a better source. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Can we change the name?

Listen, this might be a bit WP:CRYSTALBALL, but there is absolutely no reason to think this is going to be limited to March 2025 or to Venezuelans; and when that boundary is crossed, we'll have a major issue of "Okay we can't add these new events because they're not in March 2025 and/or Venezuelan". Can we, preemptively change the name to something more general that'll grant better editorial leeway, such as perhaps, "Trump Administration Deportations to CECOT" or something Snokalok (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

People already seem to have differing views on the scope of this page, so it does seem a rename is necessary. You're speaking about it potentially expanding in scope. I'm thinking instead of keeping it pretty narrow -- focusing on this one incident and the court case determining if it's legal to use the Alien Enemies Act to deport people with no due process during peacetime

So maybe narrow the scope to "March 15 2025 Venezuelan Deportations"? Or it does feel a bit CRYSTALBALL and premature to me, but maybe just make the jump to "J.G.G. v. TRUMP"? Bob drobbs (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

P.S. There's already a J.G.G._v._Donald_J._Trump, so maybe we look at a merge. Bob drobbs (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, given that that article has been created, I think it makes sense to merge the two, as I expect that the court case is going to be getting more coverage than the deportations per se. I'd rather merge the articles sooner rather than later, so that editors aren't duplicating effort in two places.

For the time being, I think Trump's use of CECOT should be added to Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration. If that gets a lot of coverage, it can be split into its own article. If the Trump admin. was truthful in saying that the third plane of deportees did not include anyone deported under the AEA. Bukele's original "offer" was to take convicted criminals. We already know that many of the people on the first 2 planes had not been convicted of crimes (or even arrested or indicted for crimes), and I have to wonder whether everyone on the third plane was. FactOrOpinion (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinionAgree regarding the merge. And yeah, let's do it ASAP.

I took at look at the other page, and if we do it now I think we can just put this article body below the existing lead, which will make the merge very, very easy. Bob drobbs (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that works. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Am I understanding you right that you're in favor of merging this article to J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump, and the parts about CECOT to Immigration policy of the second Donald Trump administration, possibly to be split into its own article later? If so, I think that's a bad idea. I'm seeing a lot of coverage about the deportees, rather than about the lawsuit. For instance, none of the people in the deportees section brought the class action and habeas corpus lawsuit, and the sources cited for them only mention the lawsuit in passing. Would they be given a section in an article about the lawsuit, or would they be removed as straying from the topic?

I'm less concerned with duplicating editors' effort, and more concerned with duplicating readers' effort by making them comb through different articles for relevant information about these deportations. Right now they're a singular event: fourth use of the Alien Enemies Act ever and the first in peacetime, mass imprisonment without trial, a flashpoint in the Trump administration's press against the courts, a rebuke from the Supreme Court, I hesitate to use the phrase "enforced disappearances in the United States" but the government didn't inform either the public or the loved ones about the fates of those it had taken, neither do I think they have sentences with a day of release. I think they deserve a central article that collects and organizes relevant information across the board, from the process of the lawsuit to background and conditions of CECOT to details of individual deportees covered in the media to issues of criminalization of asylum and termination of humanitarian parole. Would merging this article to J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump significantly narrow its scope? If so, I oppose it.

I recognize these deportations may not be limited to March or to Venezuelans, but I think it's a bridge we can cross when we come to it. For example, Deportation of illegal immigrants in the second presidency of Donald Trump was just recently renamed to Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump, in part since the deportations were no longer limited to illegal immigrants. --Kizor 18:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I think what's particularly notable about the deportation/kidnapping/human trafficking or whatever you call it is that it's a major diplomatic incident between the United States, El Salvador, and Venezuela. The litigation surrounding it just adds to the intrigue. ^Falling_Gravity 18:37, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to keeping this article, and we can consider down the road whether to move the page to a new name. If there's going to be a separate article for the court case, we should think about what information to include here vs. there (with a limited overlap).

The deportees are certainly relevant to the lawsuit, even though they're not the original plaintiffs, as the deportees are in the class that was certified, and it's their deportation that's raised the question of whether the Trump admin. ignored a judicial order. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:49, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Based on @Kizor's comments I'm now considering if we should instead merge things the other direction. Option B below.

But I do think should should clarify, not reduce, the scope. For me this article about about the 260 people deported and the resulting legal issues/case. And also, maybe it should include also anyone who is later deported using the Alien Enemies act. Anything beyond that would seem to fit into the much broader Deportation in the second presidency of Donald Trump page.

With this in mind, possible name changes could be:

• March 15 20205 Venezuelan deportations
• 2025 Deportations using Enemy Aliens Act

Bob drobbs (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

These comments are making me rethink my initial view, which was Option A below, and I'm now leaning towards C, at least for the time being (and I'll think some more and read people's additional comments before adding my !vote below). I haven't added it to the article yet, but I just read legal commentary, "The Trump Administration’s Recent Removals to El Salvador Violate the Prohibition on Transfer to Torture," so this may lead to at least one other lawsuit. I'd actually been wondering if any family members of deportees would file suit, and if so, under what law. Also, I just saw a tweet of Bukele's saying that the deportees included 238 alleged members of Tren de Aragua (presumably Venezuelan) and 23 alleged MS-13 members "wanted by Salvadoran justice" (which suggests they may not be Venezuelan -- the Admin. did say that the people on the third plane weren't deported under the AEA proclamation). If that's accurate, then your second proposal works better. Hard to know right now what will happen (will there be more deportations to CECOT, but not under the AEA? will a higher court stay the injunction, leading to more deportations under the AEA? or will the injunction be extended as the court case plays out? will there be other cases related to the deportations? ...). FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

(Comment moved to "Possible Merge?" section --Kizor 21:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC))

@KizorWant to move this comment to the merge discussion below? For clarity and convenience, I broke up the question of merge and name into two separate sections. Bob drobbs (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm gonna have to cite the longer comment above there. --Kizor 21:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Possible Merge?

There's a discussion above a merge and I wanted to break that away from the name change discussion above. Please give a vote along with thoughts:

• A Merge this article into J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump
• B Merge J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump into this article
• C No merge

Bob drobbs (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I've left a note on the JGG v Trump talk page, in case anyone watching that article wants to participate. We might also add merge templates to the two articles. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

* C I'm now leaning toward no merge. Both the deportations and the legal case are notable enough to merit their own articles. I just don't know where exactly we should draw the line for what content goes in each. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:42, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

• C. No merge, for reasons I've laid laid out in detail in the section above (see "Am I understanding you"...). Note also ^Falling_Gravity's comment there ("Yeah, I think what's particularly notable about the deportation/kidnapping/human trafficking or whatever you call it is that it's a major diplomatic incident between the United States, El Salvador, and Venezuela. The litigation surrounding it just adds to the intrigue.")
  
  J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump could be used to cover details of the legal process that are of interest to legal scholars or those interested in law as a topic, but less relevant to the deportations. I've found our articles on lawsuits often spend page after page on exacting detail. (These are the pre-trial rulings the judge made, such as allowing the prosecution to let the jury listen to recorded phone calls; this is is the number of jurors questioned and this the defense's motion on this subject; here is how many days it took for the prosecution to present its evidence; here are eight itemized lists of the first subsection of the prosecution's evidence, etc., etc.) I don't want to argue against exacting coverage of an exacting topic where rulings live or die by that exactness, but I think in this case it could be a good way to divide matters to keep this article dedicated to the deportations and put specific legal minutiae about the lawsuit in the article dedicated to the lawsuit, to ensure that people without a law degree will have the endurance and comprehension to read the entire article about the deportations. --Kizor 21:52, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
• C. But I think some of the content that's currently in this article should probably be transferred to the JGG v Trump article, with this article not including material unless it's clearly linked to the deportations and/or deportees. For example, I'm inclined to copy almost all of the Initial timeline section to JGG v Trump and then trim some the details about the timing and the hearing here. And I think part of the J.G.G. v Donald J. Trump section should just be transferred, along with the Government evading it's obligations section. What do others think about that? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  I suggest WP:BOLD and start moving a bunch of stuff. We can always iterate on figuring out what makes the most sense where. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  I see that you did this already, thanks. I've added {{copied}} templates to both talk pages. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:59, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Source identifying additional people who could be added to Deportees section

I don't have it in me right now to add their details to the article, but figured I'd link to the source in case anyone else wants to in the meantime. A text search on "profiles of 15 of them" will take you to the relevant section. I consider this an RS, but if you don't, their brief discussions of each person include links to the MSM reporting they drew on. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

WLRN

Is this article by WLRN an acceptable source? WLRN is a TV & radio outlet in Miami, says here it's "a secondary PBS member television station", an arrangement I'm not familiar with. I've used it in March 2025 Venezuelan deportations#Jose Franco Caraballo Tiapa, be bold and all that. --Kizor 22:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it's a PBS/NPR affiliate, and those are both RSs. I wasn't familiar with the concept of a secondary member station, but it looks like that just means that there's another PBS station in the broadcasting area (the primary station). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Important update

Both articles probably need a partial re-write now that we've moved beyond a preliminary injunction. The court ruled that the deported were required to have due process.[2]

Also, Homan updates his position to say that the admin won't defy the court's orders[3] Bob drobbs (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion Hey... are we literally burying the lead now?

"Judge James Boasberg ruled that many of those deported dispute their gang affiliation and must be allowed to challenge their removal."[4]

Yes, things are moving on to the appeals court. But shouldn't be put at the very top of both articles that the judge has ruled that the Trump admin was wrong, and they cannot do what they did?

I definitely want a least a 2nd opinion on this before I go and edit the leads...

Bob drobbs (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's worth adding to the leads. I actually cited that article for the content about the appeals court hearing but didn't get to the part about Boasberg's ruling. I also read today that SCOTUS had said as much in a WW II case. No doubt the ruling will be appealed, but I wonder what happens in the meantime with the men who've been deported: do they have any recourse at all given the ruling? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bob drobbs, I'm still skimming Boasberg's opinion, but I'm not sure if ABC got it right. Looks to me like he's saying that members of the class who are still in the US have a right to challenge that the government's claim that they're members of Tren de Aragua:

Because the named Plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Tren de Aragua, they may not be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge. Nor may any members of the provisionally certified class be removed until they have been given the opportunity to challenge their designations as well. The Motion to Vacate will thus be denied.

I'll skim further / hunt a bit to see if I can confirm whether he says anything about the rights of those already deported. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion This is my understanding too. I believe his ruling what they they needed to have been given due process, and thus the Trump administration was wrong. But there's no hint yet of what remedy, if any, there might be for people in CECOT.

I would have made the change already, but I wasn't quite sure of the best phrasing. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't found anything in the ruling so far about those already deported. Perhaps something along the lines of the following would work: "On March 24, Boasberg denied the government's motion to vacate his temporary restraining order, ruling that anyone the government wishes to deport under the Alien Enemies Act must first be given an opportunity to challenge in a hearing the government's assertion that the person is a member of Tren de Aragua" or perhaps just "Boasberg ruled that anyone..." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how many people care (esp. on this page) that this was a denial of a motion to vacate. For me at least, the key point is he ruled that ruled people must be given due process. Bob drobbs (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Then it can be that simple: "On March 24, Boasberg ruled that the government cannot deport anyone under the president's proclamation without a hearing". FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

How about replacing "president's proclamation" with "Alien Enemies Act"? Bob drobbs (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Sure (I think there's a technical difference, but no practical difference). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Made the update. Also got rid of a sentence in the lead about Trump team's arguments which seem less relevant now that there's a ruling. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Also added a more complete version in the body of both articles which mentions denying the motion. Bob drobbs (talk) 00:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I still think that the news agencies are getting this wrong. I couldn't find anything in his ruling about due process rights for the people who had already been deported. But maybe I'm misunderstanding the ruling. It may be a matter of whether he judges the deportees to have been members of the certified class (and I'm not sure that he's ruled on that yet, I think he was waiting for more info from the government).

Adding to everything else, a government filing tonight says "The Executive Branch hereby notifies the Court that no further information will be provided in response to the Court’s March 18, 2025 Minute Order [with several questions about the timing of the planes / transfer of the deportees] based on the state secrets privilege ..." Amazing that they're trying to assert state secrets when they're using commercial planes with publicly tracked info. (Well, not amazing, it's par for the course for this admin. There's a reason there's a False or misleading statements by Donald Trump article.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Deletion Withdrawn - Help?

The nomination for deletion has been withdrawn, but a bot keeps putting the notice back on the top of this article.

Anyone know how to fix it? Bob drobbs (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I fixed it. it was because i put the wrong template to close it ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 21:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in finishing the close there! Bob drobbs (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)