Key Takeaways
• Judge Boasberg ordered the government to provide passenger lists for removal flights to El Salvador after his stop-removal order.
• Dispute centers on whether verbal judicial orders are immediately binding or require written documentation for enforcement.
• Flight lists are crucial to determine if removals violated court orders and ensure due process under U.S. and international law.
A federal judge in Massachusetts has made a new order in one of the most watched immigration cases in recent years. The judge asked government officials to provide a full flight list, or passenger list, for at least two removal flights to El Salvador 🇸🇻 that took off after a court order meant to stop such removals was given. This order came during a heated court dispute, with deportees and their lawyers saying that people were sent away to a third country even after the court said to stop.
Let’s explore why this case has gotten so much attention, the key arguments happening in court, and what the judge’s recent order means for the future of third country removal in the United States 🇺🇸.
The Fight Over Third Country Removal Flights
The case started when President Trump, in March 2025, used a law called the Alien Enemies Act. This law can be used by the president during times of conflict or when they think there’s a threat involving noncitizens. Under this authority, President Trump allowed the quick detention and removal of people suspected of being members of criminal groups, especially the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.
The government started arranging flights to send these suspected group members from the United States 🇺🇸 to El Salvador 🇸🇻. Some of these flights took off even after U.S. District Judge James Boasberg told officials to stop or reverse any removals if the flights were still in progress.
Why the Judge Orders the Flight List
On April 28, 2025, the judge gave a clear order: the government must release the names of all the people on “at least two” flights to El Salvador 🇸🇻 that left after his March order. This order came because the judge felt that government officials were possibly ignoring the court’s earlier instructions. Plaintiffs (those fighting deportation) and their lawyers want to know exactly who was sent out of the country, partly to help those people get legal help or file appeals.
Judge Boasberg’s order was clear and strict. He said the Constitution does not allow government officials to ignore direct instructions from a judge. He believed there was enough evidence that some officials might have knowingly ignored or tried to go around his direct orders, which could even count as a crime called criminal contempt.
What Is At Stake with Third Country Removal?
Sending people to a “third country” means taking them from the United States 🇺🇸, not back to the country they came from, but to another country—El Salvador 🇸🇻 in this case. This has created many questions:
- Are the people being sent away at risk in the new country?
- Did the government follow all laws meant to keep people from being sent to places where they could be in danger?
- Were the removals done in a way that gave people a fair chance to argue for their rights in court?
The law says a person shouldn’t be sent to any country where they would face torture. There are also rules about when officials can send someone to another country instead of their home country. These rules are supposed to protect the basic rights of anyone facing removal.
Why the Flight List Matters
For lawyers, advocates, and the people affected, getting a full flight list is very important. It lets them see who exactly was moved out of the United States 🇺🇸, and when. If someone was sent away after the judge ordered a stop to removals, it can be proof that officials did not follow the court’s orders.
- A full flight list could show if people were sent away when they still had a right to ask for protection or an appeal.
- It helps lawyers find and reach out to the people who may want to challenge how they were removed.
- It ensures there is a public record, making it less likely for mistakes or unfair removals to go unnoticed.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, the push for transparency on the flight list ties into broader questions of how migration enforcement should balance speed with fairness, especially under unusual rules like the Alien Enemies Act.
Disagreement Over the Judge’s Orders
One of the heated debates in court has been whether a verbal order—a spoken instruction given by the judge—is binding (must be followed) right away, or if it only counts once it has been written down and formally signed. Government lawyers from the Department of Justice said that only written orders should matter, while the plaintiffs argued that any order from the judge, spoken or written, must be respected at once.
This disagreement matters because, on March 15–16, 2025, the judge gave a mix of verbal and written orders to stop “third country” removal flights. Despite this, several flights still went out to El Salvador 🇸🇻. Department of Justice lawyers insisted that once the planes left U.S. airspace, the people onboard were no longer under U.S. government control and the court could not act.
Plaintiffs and several immigration law experts have disagreed. They say that if the people were still on the plane, they were still in U.S. government custody. Even if the plane is not physically in the United States 🇺🇸, they argue, the government remains responsible for what happens to them until they actually step onto foreign soil and are handed over to local authorities.
Timeline and Orders Table
To make the story even clearer, here’s a short table showing the main events and the government’s response:
| Date | Event/Order | Government Response |
|---|---|---|
| March 15–16 | Verbal and written orders to halt/removal flights | Flights continued; DOJ disputes order’s power |
| April 16 | Judge found probable cause for criminal contempt | DOJ says court’s reach ended after departure |
| April 28 | Judge orders disclosure of passenger/flight lists | Awaiting full compliance |
Constitutional Arguments and Executive Power
This case is not only about specific flights or passengers. It is a fight over who can set and enforce immigration policy, especially in emergencies or when the government says there is a special security threat.
- The president has strong powers to control immigration during emergencies, using laws like the Alien Enemies Act.
- But the courts are there to check if those in power respect basic rights, such as the right to due process (fair legal steps before a loss of freedom).
- When orders from a judge are not followed, it raises big questions about whether the government is following the Constitution.
Judge Boasberg’s ruling was sharp: “The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials…who have sworn an oath to uphold it.” He found there was probable cause (good reason to believe) that some actions by officials might count as criminal contempt, which could mean legal punishment for those who ignored the judge.
Legal Protections for People Facing Removal
There are international and U.S. laws that protect people facing removal or deportation. For example, the Convention Against Torture forbids sending someone to a country where there is a good chance they will be tortured. There are also U.S. laws that forbid returning someone if their life or freedom would be at risk because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a social group. These protections are often called “withholding of removal.”
However, both these protections do not stop the government from sending people to a third country where, in theory, they will be safe. But, lawyers and advocates argue, sending someone to a third country without a careful and fair review often leads to mistakes. People might end up in countries where they have no support or face great danger. That’s why transparency—such as knowing the exact flight list—is so important.
What Happens Next?
At the moment, the Department of Justice is expected to fully follow the judge’s order and deliver the requested flight lists. If the flight lists show that people were removed in violation of the judge’s earlier order, it may lead to more court actions, or even punishments for government officials involved.
Legal experts say this case could set rules for how similar removals will be handled in the future. It could also clarify:
- When a judge’s spoken instructions must be followed
- Whether the government must always keep a public record of who is sent out of the country
- How to handle removals to third countries when international protections apply
Broader Impacts
This case will likely affect many different groups:
Immigrants and Their Families
- People facing removal will pay close attention, as the rules this case sets could decide whether they get a fair chance to stay in the United States 🇺🇸.
- Families separated by fast removals may use the flight lists to find loved ones.
Immigration Lawyers and Advocates
- They will use flight lists to check if the government followed the law.
- The case could change how lawyers can fight for their clients in urgent deportation cases.
Government and Policy Makers
- Officials may have to make changes to how they handle future removals, especially during emergencies.
- There could be new policies about how, and when, flight lists are shared openly.
International Relations
- The case also affects relationships between the United States 🇺🇸 and countries like El Salvador 🇸🇻.
- Countries receiving third-country removals may set their own rules or raise concerns if they think people sent to them are in danger.
Differing Viewpoints and Public Reactions
As with most major immigration cases, not everyone agrees on the best course of action. Supporters of fast removals say they help keep the United States 🇺🇸 safe and enforce law and order. Critics argue that speed is no excuse to ignore laws meant to protect people from harm. They say a government that does not follow court orders can be dangerous for everyone.
This case does not settle the debate, but it does shine a light on how transparency, such as releasing a flight list, can help keep everyone honest. It also encourages careful review of rules about third-country removal.
Conclusion: Why This Case Is Important
Judge Boasberg’s order to release the flight lists is not just a small legal step. It is part of a bigger struggle over how far the government can go when using emergency powers and how courts can step in to protect individual rights. The fight over the flight list and third-country removal could set new standards for how immigrants facing removal are treated in the United States 🇺🇸.
As this case unfolds, it reminds us why open records, court oversight, and clear rules matter for everyone, not just those facing deportation. For those wanting more official information about U.S. removal and deportation practices, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services provides details on current procedures and rights for those in removal proceedings: USCIS Removal Proceedings.
By keeping a close eye on cases like these and demanding transparency—such as a full flight list—the courts, advocates, and the public play a big role in making sure the United States 🇺🇸 upholds its laws and its promises to treat everyone fairly, even in high-pressure times.
Learn Today
Alien Enemies Act → A U.S. law allowing the president to act against nationals of enemy countries during wartime or perceived threats.
Criminal Contempt → A legal violation in which someone intentionally disobeys a court order, potentially resulting in fines or jail time.
Third Country Removal → Deporting someone from the U.S. to a country other than their homeland, usually considered ‘safe’ by authorities.
Convention Against Torture → An international treaty prohibiting sending individuals to countries where they risk being tortured.
Withholding of Removal → A legal protection preventing deportation to a country where the individual’s life or freedom would be threatened.
This Article in a Nutshell
A U.S. federal judge demanded passenger lists for removal flights to El Salvador after a court-ordered halt was allegedly ignored. The case tests government compliance with judicial orders, constitutional rights, and the transparency of third-country removals, raising new questions about due process and emergency executive immigration powers.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• 126 Immigrants Face Charges for Returning to the U.S. After Removal
• “Trump Administration Axes 5 Texas Immigration Judges: ‘Caseload Will Balloon,’ Warns Fired Judge”
Sweeping judge removals spark fears of worsening court backlog amidst 3.7M pending cases. What’s behind it?
• Expedited Removal Policy Expands, Leveraging Social Security and DOGE
• Administrative Deportation: How Expedited Removals Are Reshaping U.S. Policy
• Self-Deportation vs. ICE Removal: What You Need to Know
