Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to return more than 100 Venezuelan men deported earlier this year so they can challenge allegations of gang ties, setting up a clash between due process and immigration enforcement with a January 5, 2026 deadline.

Federal District Court Judge James Boasberg directed the administration to bring back over 100 Venezuelan men by January 5, 2026, so they can contest claims of gang involvement. Those men were deported earlier this year, and the court says they deserve an opportunity to defend themselves rather than remain barred from the U.S. without a hearing.

In March, the Venezuelan men were sent to a prison in El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a statute meant for national security situations. The use of that old law to effect these removals has become central to the legal challenge and the broader debate over expedited deportations.

Judge Boasberg has already signaled his concern: in June he ruled these men were entitled to a chance to contest the allegations. Multiple courts have since questioned whether hundreds of similar removals denied people a meaningful opportunity to challenge claims that triggered their deportation.

The judge made his view plain in the ruling: “The Court finds that the only remedy that would give effect to its granting of Plaintiffs’ Motion would be to order the Government to undo the effects of their unlawful removal by facilitating a meaningful opportunity to contest their designation and the Proclamation’s validity.” This language forces the government to decide whether to reverse past actions to allow a proper hearing.

He emphasized the point again with this warning: “Otherwise, a finding of unlawful removal would be meaningless for Plaintiffs, who have already been sent back to Venezuela against their wishes and without due process.” That blunt restatement frames the court’s remedy as necessary to make its ruling effective rather than symbolic.

From a Republican viewpoint, the ruling raises hard questions about protecting communities while respecting legal rights. Conservatives back strict immigration enforcement and the Alien Enemies Act’s original purpose, yet many also worry that procedural missteps can produce legal setbacks that hamper national security and public safety.

The administration faces a tight logistics problem to comply with the court’s deadline and facilitate returns for hearings. Organizing international transportation, custody arrangements, and courtroom scheduling for more than 100 individuals is no small task and will put enforcement priorities under strain.

There’s a real tension here between swift action and procedural safeguards: if the government must routinely undo removals to honor due process, that could slow down the ability to respond to genuine threats. On the other hand, shrugging off due process risks legal reversals that undo removals after the fact and erode public confidence in immigration enforcement.

Conservatives and Republicans who support the MAGA-era focus on border control will likely push for clearer, tougher protocols that still satisfy constitutional and statutory protections. The challenge for the White House is to tighten enforcement in ways that leave no procedural gaps for courts to exploit while keeping Americans safe.

This order will test how the administration balances national security with legal obligations, and it may prompt changes to removal procedures or further litigation. The coming months will reveal whether the government adapts its approach or finds itself repeatedly pulled back into court to correct deportations made without adequate process.