Filed Date: June 5, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the series of agreements between the Department of State and El Salvador by which El Salvador agreed to accept individuals from the United States and to hold them in detention facilities. The agreement between the United States and El Salvador was made on February 3, 2025. Secretary of State Rubio explained that President Bukele of El Salvador “has agreed to accept for deportation any illegal alien in the United States who is a criminal from any nationality, be they MS-13 or Tren de Aragua, and house them in his jails.” According to the terms of the agreement, the U.S. agreed to pay El Salvador $6 million to imprison 300 alleged gang members for one year, along with a $20,000 one-time "maintenance fee" for each individual. The U.S. also agreed to return certain MS-13 gang leaders who were facing criminal prosecution in the U.S., for which El Salvador offered a 50% discount for a second year of detention.
On June 5, 2025, five non-profit immigration and criminal defense organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department and the Secretary of State. The complaint alleged that the prison conditions in El Salvador were "inhumane" to the extent of "threaten[ing] the health, safety, and even lives of those held there." It included a list of alleged human rights violations reported by human rights organizations. Under the agreement, individuals sent from the United States would be detained in the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), which is said to hold up to 40,000 people, albeit without sufficient space.
Represented by counsel from the Democracy Forward Foundation and in-house counsel, the organizations alleged that the Department's actions caused them harm by preventing their "core mission" of assisting immigrants and persons criminally prosecuted and attempting to prevent human rights violations in the U.S. and abroad. They also claimed that some of their clients have already been removed and housed in CECOT. The complaint alleged that the defendants' actions violated the Appropriations Clause, the First Amendment's protection of religious liberty, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, the Sixth Amendment's fair trial protections, the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, the Convention Against Torture, and multiple immigration laws and agency regulations. Given these violations, the complaint alleged that the defendants' actions were contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and in excess of statutory authority under the Administrative Procedure Act. It also alleged that the agreement was ultra vires.
The plaintiffs asked the court to declare the agreement unlawful, to enjoin the defendants from taking any action in pursuit of the agreement, and to award the plaintiffs their court costs. The case was assigned to Chief District Judge James E. Boasberg due to its relationship to other cases before him regarding removals under the Alien Enemies Act to CECOT. Chief Judge Boasberg ordered the plaintiffs to file their motion for summary judgment by August 22, 2025.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jeremiah Price (6/12/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70464280/parties/robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-v-department-of-state/
Boasberg, James Emanuel (District of Columbia)
Decker, Sarah (District of Columbia)
Enriquez, Anthony (District of Columbia)
Friedl, Kevin E. (District of Columbia)
Gillman, Sarah Telo (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70464280/robert-f-kennedy-human-rights-v-department-of-state/
Last updated Aug. 19, 2025, 11:32 a.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Immigration Enforcement)
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 5, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Five non-profit immigration and criminal defense organizations.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Department of State (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Spending/Appropriations Clauses
Sixth Amendment (criminal jury, other rights)
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Immigration/Border:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: