Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Lawfare: Our Reporters' Notes on the May 7 Hearing in the J.G.G. Case
https://bsky.app/profile/annabower.bsky.socialLawfare
Courts & Litigation Executive Branch
Our Reporters’ Notes on the May 7 Hearing in the J.G.G. Case
Anna Bower, Roger Parloff
Thursday, May 8, 2025, 1:02 PM
The judge seemed receptive to a class action on behalf of aliens sent to CECOT under President Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of Washington, D.C. held a late hearing, beginning at 5 p.m. on May 7, to hear motions in the case of J.G.G. v. Trump.
The suit, filed in the early morning hours of March 15, was originally brought as a putative class action by five Venezuelans who feared being summarily removed from the country pursuant to President Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation. For confidentiality, the plaintiffs have been identified only by their initials.
The case has morphed since then. On the evening of March 15, the putative class members, except the five named plaintiffs, were, in fact, removed and imprisoned in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. On April 16, Judge Boasberg found probable cause to believe that those removals were carried out in criminal contempt of his orders. The contempt proceedings have been administratively stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pending appeal.
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the case’s claims had to be brought through habeas corpus actions filed in the districts where the aliens were confined, the original five named plaintiffs filed two new habeas class actions in the districts of their detention facilities: one in the Southern District of New York (G.F.F. v. Trump) and another in the Southern District of Texas (J.A.V. v. Trump).
{snip}
Courts & Litigation Executive Branch
Our Reporters’ Notes on the May 7 Hearing in the J.G.G. Case
Anna Bower, Roger Parloff
Thursday, May 8, 2025, 1:02 PM
The judge seemed receptive to a class action on behalf of aliens sent to CECOT under President Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg of Washington, D.C. held a late hearing, beginning at 5 p.m. on May 7, to hear motions in the case of J.G.G. v. Trump.
The suit, filed in the early morning hours of March 15, was originally brought as a putative class action by five Venezuelans who feared being summarily removed from the country pursuant to President Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation. For confidentiality, the plaintiffs have been identified only by their initials.
The case has morphed since then. On the evening of March 15, the putative class members, except the five named plaintiffs, were, in fact, removed and imprisoned in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. On April 16, Judge Boasberg found probable cause to believe that those removals were carried out in criminal contempt of his orders. The contempt proceedings have been administratively stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit pending appeal.
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the case’s claims had to be brought through habeas corpus actions filed in the districts where the aliens were confined, the original five named plaintiffs filed two new habeas class actions in the districts of their detention facilities: one in the Southern District of New York (G.F.F. v. Trump) and another in the Southern District of Texas (J.A.V. v. Trump).
{snip}