In a 42-page order Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg dismissed, without prejudice, a lawsuit filed last June by a coalition of criminal defense attorneys and immigrant advocacy groups against the Trump administration, which was accused of violating federal law through its agreement with El Salvador to imprison deported noncitizens for as much as $20,000 per person.
The groups Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Immigration Defenders Law Center said in their complaint that, although the Administrative Procedure Act requires agency actions to be both reasonable and reasonably explained, the agreement between the U.S. Department of State and El Salvador is neither.
Last August, the groups moved for summary judgment and asked the court to set aside the arrangement, arguing they had standing to establish injury-in-fact as their ability to provide legal services and other resources to people in immigration detention had been seriously impaired by the U.S.' deal with El Salvador. The groups argued they couldn't contact their clients after they were removed from the country by the Department of Homeland Security, were denied access to El Salvador prisons, and had to divert resources, staffing and more.
On Wednesday, Judge Boasberg ruled that while the plaintiffs established injury and causation from the U.S.' arrangement with El Salvador that clearly impeded their ability to serve their noncitizen clients and drained their resources, "they do not pass the redressability screen."
"At bottom, plaintiffs describe real injuries stemming from an unprecedented detention arrangement between the United States and El Salvador," the judge said. "They have thus directed their challenge at the nonbinding diplomatic instrument that preceded the agencies' actions. But, legally, the agreement is not what authorized the government to render plaintiffs' clients to El Salvador and to pay the Salvadoran government to detain them."
The judge continued: "Instead, that power comes from statutes that predate the agreement and that would stay in force no matter how the court decides this case. Even if the court vacated the agreement, then, the government could keep using those same statutes to inflict the same injury on plaintiffs."
Ultimately, Judge Boasberg dismissed the suit and denied the organizations' summary judgment bid, after concluding they lacked standing since their requested relief wouldn't likely redress their harms.
The judge explained the agreement between El Salvador and the U.S. is a "nonbinding diplomatic exchange of notes" that created no legal duty and conferred no new authority. The deal also lacks other commitments that could be enforced by either courts or legal advocates, the order said.
There are limits, however, as to what the vacatur could do for the plaintiffs, the order noted.
"An instrument that facilitates conduct is not the same as an instrument that provides the legal authority for that conduct," the judge wrote. "The agreement created the conditions under which DHS and State were prompted to act, but it did not confer the legal authority under which they acted. Removing a facilitative instrument therefore leaves the underlying legal authority for the facilitated conduct undiminished."
DHS' power to deport people has stemmed from the INA, and nothing in the framework of that statute calls for a bilateral diplomatic arrangement as a precursor for removal, the order said. And, the State Department's power to provide foreign assistance-funding stems from the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, which also exists outside the U.S.' agreement with El Salvador, the judge said.
"Plaintiffs therefore are incorrect to assert that vacating the agreement would leave the government with 'no mechanism' to continue the conduct they challenge," the order said.
The judge continued: "Whether the conduct is characterized as rendition, removal, or outsourced detention, the legal authority making it possible is grounded in DHS's INA authority and State's FAA authority, neither of which depends on the Agreement's validity. As long as both agencies retain those statutory authorities, the conduct that produced Plaintiffs' injuries can continue regardless of whether the diplomatic notes are vacated."
Nor would vacatur of the arrangement eliminate the shared understanding between the U.S. and El Salvador to remove individuals to the latter in return for funding, the order said. With that understanding in play, the U.S. only has to utilize the DHS' statutory removal power and the State's foreign assistance funding to accomplish the same transfers again, the judge said.
"Vacatur of the agreement, in short would leave the two governments exactly where they are: in possession of shared interests, the legal means to act on them, and a process of rendition and payment that they have already put in practice," the ruling concluded.
"The idea that the government can disappear people into a foreign prison notorious for abuse should alarm every person in this country," said Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward. "No administration has the authority to bypass the Constitution by secretly sending people to a system designed to operate beyond public scrutiny and legal accountability. We will continue fighting and using every legal tool to shine a light and to ensure this unlawful and deeply dangerous scheme is stopped."
Representatives for the government did not immediately respond to inquiries seeking comment Thursday.
The plaintiffs are represented by Kevin E. Friedl, Jessica Anne Morton and Robin F. Thurston of Democracy Forward Foundation, and Anthony Enriquez, Sarah T. Gillman, and Sarah E. Decker of Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights.
The federal government is represented by Brett A. Shumate, Eric Hamilton, Jean Lin, Tiberius Davis and J. Stephen Tagert of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The case is Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights et al. v. Department of State et al., case number 1:25-cv-01774, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
--Editing by Emily Kokoll.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
