Judge Boasberg Condemns DOJ’s ‘Pound Sand’ Response in Venezuela Deportation Case

A federal judge has sharply criticized the Department of Justice (DOJ) for its handling of a case concerning the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, accusing the agency of effectively dismissing the court’s authority. The case, J.G.G. V. Trump, centers around a group of Venezuelans deported last March despite a prior court order, and has escalated into a dispute over due process and government accountability.

Judge Boasberg, who previously presided over the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and was known for deferring to national security claims, has taken a notably firm stance against the DOJ’s actions. According to reporting from Techdirt, the judge has expressed frustration with the agency’s lack of engagement and what he characterized as a dismissive response – telling the court to “pound sand.”

The core of the dispute stems from a December 22, 2025 ruling where the court found the government had denied due process to the Venezuelan migrants. The court had offered the DOJ an opportunity to propose a process for hearings, allowing the migrants to challenge their deportations under the Alien Enemies Act and the validity of the presidential proclamation authorizing the deportations. The DOJ’s response, however, was deemed inadequate and dismissive.

“Apparently not interested in participating in this process, the Government’s responses essentially told the Court to pound sand,” Judge Boasberg wrote in his ruling, as reported by Facebook’s Dallas Morning News. This blunt assessment, coming from a judge with a history of respecting executive authority, underscores the severity of the situation.

The migrants were initially deported to CECOT, a prison in El Salvador widely described as a “concentration camp” due to its harsh conditions and human rights concerns. The legal challenge argues that the deportations violated the migrants’ constitutional rights, particularly their right to due process.

In response to the DOJ’s inaction, Judge Boasberg has ordered the government to “facilitate the return” of any of the deported Venezuelans who wish to return to the United States. The order also allows those still abroad to file supplemental habeas corpus claims. This directive aligns with a recent Supreme Court ruling in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, which upheld a similar order requiring the government to facilitate the return of a deportee.

However, the practical implications of this order are complex. Many of the Venezuelans were eventually released from CECOT and returned to Venezuela, a country facing significant political and economic instability. The judge acknowledged this context, noting the plaintiffs’ lawyers had approached the case with caution. The DOJ, in contrast, has been criticized for its lack of engagement and willingness to offer solutions.

Judge Boasberg highlighted the DOJ’s disregard for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abrego Garcia, stating it was “ridiculous” that the agency was seemingly ignoring its precedent. He further noted a pattern of “flagrant” disobedience of court orders by the DOJ.

“Against this backdrop, and mindful of the flagrancy of the Government’s violations of the deportees’ due-process rights that landed Plaintiffs in this situation, the Court refuses to let them languish in the solution-less mire Defendants propose,” the judge wrote.

The court has also mandated that the government cover the cost of air travel for any migrants who choose to return to the U.S., citing the unlawful nature of their initial deportation. This is in line with a recent ruling in Ms. L. V. U.S. Immig. & Customs Enf’t, where a court required the government to pay for the return of unlawfully deported families.

Despite the order, it remains uncertain how many of the deported Venezuelans will choose to return, given the potential for re-detention by immigration officials and the challenging conditions in their home country. Many initially fled Venezuela due to political and economic hardship, and may be hesitant to re-enter a system that led to their initial unlawful deportation.

A significant point of contention is the lack of consequences for DOJ officials involved in the handling of this case. While Judge Boasberg could have imposed sanctions, he ultimately did not. This decision, as noted by Techdirt, may embolden the DOJ to continue disregarding court orders, as there appears to be little risk of accountability for such behavior. The judge’s ruling, while forceful in its condemnation of the DOJ’s actions, ultimately stops short of imposing meaningful penalties, raising concerns about the agency’s continued disregard for judicial authority.

The case underscores a broader issue of executive branch overreach and the importance of judicial oversight in protecting due process rights. While Judge Boasberg’s ruling represents a victory for the plaintiffs, the lack of concrete consequences for the DOJ raises questions about the effectiveness of the courts in holding the government accountable for its actions.