J.G.G. v. TRUMP Order Date Filed: 06/04/2025 Court: District Court (D.D.C.) Affiliate: Washington, D.C.
One morning, Kafka’s Josef K. awakens to encounter two strange men outside his room. As he gets his bearings, he realizes that he is under arrest. When he asks the strangers why, he receives no answer. “We weren’t sent to tell you that,” one says. “Proceedings are under way and you’ll learn everything in due course.” Franz Kafka, The Trial 5 (Breon Mitchell trans., Schocken Books Inc. 1998). Bewildered by these men and distressed by their message, K. tries to comfort himself that he lives in “a state governed by law,” one where “all statutes [are] in force.” Id. at 6. He therefore demands again, “How can I be under arrest? And in this manner?” “Now there you go again,” the guard replies. “We don’t answer such questions.” Undeterred, K. offers his “papers” and demands their arrest warrant. “Good heavens!” the man scolds. “There’s been no mistake.” “[O]ur department,” he assures K., is only “attracted by guilt”; it “doesn’t seek [it] out . . . . That’s the Law.” Id. at 8–9. “I don’t know that law,” K. responds. “You’ll feel it eventually,” the guard says. Id. at 9.Such was the situation into which Frengel Reyes Mota, Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, and scores of other Venezuelan noncitizens say they were plunged on March 15, 2025. In the early morning hours, Venezuelans held by the Department of Homeland Security at El Valle Detention Facility in Texas were awakened from their cells, taken to a separate room, shackled, and informed that they were being transferred. See J.G.G. v. Trump, 2025 WL 1119481, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 16, 2025); ECF Nos. 44-9 (Karyn Ann Shealy Second Decl.), ¶¶ 7–8; 44-10 (Stephanie Quintero Decl.), ¶ 3; 44-11 (Grace Carney First Decl.), ¶ 11; 44-12 (Melissa Smyth Decl.), ¶ 13. To where? That they were not told. See ECF No. 101 (Am. Compl.), ¶ 69; Smyth Decl., ¶ 13. When asked, some guards reportedly laughed and said that they did not know; others told the detainees, incorrectly, that they were being transferred to another immigration facility or to Mexico or Venezuela. See Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 10; Quintero Decl., ¶ 3; ECF Nos. 67-6 (Grace Carney Second Decl.), ¶ 3; 67-11 (Abigail Beckman Decl.), ¶ 9; 102-8 (D.A.R.H. Decl.), ¶ 8.Before long, Reyes Mota, Hernandez Romero, and the other detainees were shuttled onto buses, driven to a nearby airport, and loaded onto planes. J.G.G, 2025 WL 1119481, at *2. As the planes waited on the tarmac, many passengers aboard reportedly began to panic and beg officials for more information, but none was provided. See Shealy Second Decl., ¶ 10. The planes eventually departed that evening and, after a stop in Honduras, landed in El Salvador. J.G.G., 2025 WL 1119481, at *4. Upon their arrival, the detainees were transferred into a Salvadoran mega-prison known as the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).
...
Perhaps the President lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act. Perhaps, moreover, Defendants are correct that Plaintiffs are gang members. But — and this is the critical point — there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government’s say-so. Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made. And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations. See, e.g., Sánchez Decl., ¶ 6 (Reyes Mota); D.A.R.H. Decl., ¶¶ 6–7 (Hernandez Romero); ECF Nos. 67-10 (Paulina Reyes Decl.), Exh. A (Hernandez Romero); 102-9 (M.Z.V.V. Decl.), ¶ 6 (J.A.B.V.); 102-10 (M.Y.O.R.
...
In short, the Government must facilitate the Class’s ability to seek habeas relief to contest their removal under the Act. Exactly what such facilitation must entail will be determined in future proceedings. Although the Court is mindful that such a remedy may implicate sensitive diplomatic or national-security concerns within the exclusive province of the Executive Branch, it also has a constitutional duty to provide a remedy that will “make good the wrong done.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 684 (1946).
