Share and Follow
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters before signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Monday, March 31, 2025 (Pool via AP).
A federal judge in California blocked the Trump administration from deporting a Venezuelan man to a notorious work prison in El Salvador under an 18th-century wartime power unless the government provides him with at least two-week notice of his removal.
U.S. District Judge Sunshine S. Sykes on Friday appeared skeptical about assertions from the Justice Department that the petitioner would be given the opportunity to exercise his due process rights. According to the 8-page order, the petitioner, Yostin Sleiker Gutierrez-Contreras, came to the U.S. in May 2024 and was enrolled in the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) biometric reporting database. In September 2024, Gutierrez-Contreras reported to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations in San Bernardino, California, where authorities photographed and cataloged his tattoos.
Based on the photographs of his tattoos, the government concluded that he “had a possible affiliation with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), which President Donald Trump proclaimed as an invading force under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) in March. Gutierrez-Contreras “vigorously dispute[ed] any TdA affiliation” and was allowed to remain in the country under supervision.
Despite allegedly maintaining “perfect compliance” with his supervision, Gutierrez-Contreras on March 19 was taken into custody by the government. A judge ordered him released with pretrial conditions on March 26, but ICE officials immediately took him back into custody. On April 12, Gutierrez-Contreras’ counsel learned that the government was planning on removing him to El Salvador under the AEA.
Two days later, Gutierrez-Contreras was moved from California to a detention facility in Texas, which is “the same facility from which the government placed several Venezuelans on buses in an apparent effort to remove them to El Salvador under the AEA until they were stopped by a Supreme Court Order,” Sykes wrote.
The Trump administration argued that Gutierrez-Contreras was not entitled to a temporary restraining order barring his removal under the AEA because he is not at “imminent risk” of summary removal and therefore cannot demonstrate he is facing “irreparable harm.”
In addition, the government claims that “Petitioner is only entitled to ‘reasonable notice’ prior to removal under the AEA rather than the fourteen days’ notice the TRO seeks, and the Court does not have jurisdiction to enjoin the government’s transfer from Adelanto, California and/or Desert View Annex.”
Sykes rejected the government’s arguments, reasoning that it would likely violate the petitioner’s constitutional rights. She wrote that Gutierrez-Contreras’s petition “raises the serious question whether his removal under the AEA without notice and an opportunity to challenge the removal is a violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause.”
She also indicated that, given the administration’s recent history, she was not inclined to give the government the benefit of the doubt in the instant case without additional details.
“While Respondents challenge the requirement of fourteen days’ notice as unnecessary given that Petitioner, and others similarly situated, are solely entitled to ‘reasonable notice’ under J.G.G., Respondents fail to articulate specifically what they believe is sufficient to comply with the requirement for ‘reasonable notice’ in their briefing and at the hearing on this Petition,” the order states. “This Court cannot, and will not, rely on vague and undefined statements about notice procedures when an individual’s due process rights are implicated. Therefore, the Court holds that Petitioner’s TRO raises a serious question related to the possible violation of his due process rights if he is removed under the AEA without fourteen days’ notice and an opportunity to challenge the removal.”
Sykes, a Joe Biden appointee, also rejected the government’s assertion that Gutierrez-Contreras was not facing imminent harm because he is currently covered by an administrative stay issued in a separate case, saying they “do not presently expect to remove” him under the AEA (emphasis in original). Sykes noted that the government is currently attempting to “dissolve or limit” that stay, which could “lead to [Gutierrez-Contreras’] removal under the AEA without an opportunity to exercise his due process rights.”
“Respondents are ordered to provide fourteen days’ notice to Petitioner and his counsel, in writing, prior to attempting to remove, deport, or expel him out of the United States under the Alien Enemies Act or any legal authority other than the Immigration and Nationality Act. Respondents are enjoined and barred from removing Petitioner under the Alien Enemies Act or any legal authority other than the Immigration and Nationality Act without first providing such notice,” Sykes concluded.
Her order will remain in effect until May 10.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
