President Donald Trump signed Proclamation 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, to detain and deport Venezuelan citizens accused of having ties to the criminal group Tren de Aragua (TdA), considered by his administration as a foreign terrorist organization. This historic and rarely used law allows the U.S. president to order the detention or expulsion of nationals from enemy countries without prior trial, something that had only been implemented during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
The administration justified its action by alleging that the Tren de Aragua was conducting an “irregular war” on U.S. territory, in collaboration with Nicolás Maduro’s regime. Under this logic, the immediate deportation of any Venezuelan citizen over 14 years old suspected of belonging to the group was authorized. The selection criteria were based on a point system that considered tattoos, social media posts, clothing, and alleged personal relationships, which drew numerous criticisms for being an arbitrary, discriminatory system without legal guarantees.
As a direct consequence, on March 15, 2025, over 230 Venezuelans were deported to El Salvador and confined in the Center for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT), a maximum-security prison run by Nayib Bukele’s government. These deportations were carried out despite a judicial order from federal judge James Boasberg prohibiting their execution under the Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration was accused of contempt for ignoring this order, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the case Trump v. J.G.G., overturned the order of the federal court in Washington D.C. that had temporarily blocked the deportations, arguing that only the courts in the district where the detainees were located (Texas) had jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions. Furthermore, it determined that migrants’ claims should be channeled exclusively through this remedy, and not through the Administrative Procedure Act. Although the ruling allowed deportations to continue, it also required that migrants be notified in advance and given the opportunity to appeal to a court.
The decision was supported by Justice Kavanaugh, who highlighted the centrality of habeas corpus in national security contexts. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson, and Barrett (partially) strongly criticized the government’s policy. They argued that deporting without hearing or notice—especially to a country like El Salvador and to a prison such as CECOT, known for its inhumane conditions—represented a flagrant violation of due process. They also questioned the use of a law designed for interstate conflicts as a migratory tool applied to a criminal group in peacetime.
A second case, A.A.R.P. and W.M.M. v. Trump et al., also reached the Supreme Court. In it, two Venezuelan citizens detained in Texas requested an emergency order to prevent their deportation, claiming they did not receive proper notification, legal assistance, or the opportunity to contest their expulsion.
The ACLU, representing the applicants, denounced the use of superficial criteria to label people as members of Tren de Aragua. Moreover, it warned that several affected individuals had ongoing asylum proceedings and no criminal records. The deportation to El Salvador, and particularly to CECOT, was characterized as a form of arbitrary detention without legal basis in the receiving country.
Both cases highlight the importance of the relationship between jurisdiction and territory. In law, the jurisdiction refers to the power of courts to hear and resolve matters within a sovereign territory. In the U.S., Article III of the Constitution establishes federal jurisdiction, allowing courts to hear cases arising under federal laws, treaties, interstate conflicts, among others. According to established doctrine since The Exchange (1812) and reaffirmed in Chae Chan Ping v. United States (1889), a State’s jurisdiction over its own territory is exclusive and absolute. Any exception must derive from the consent of the State itself.
However, there are exceptions to the principle of territoriality. A State can exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in specific cases: in embassies (diplomatic extraterritoriality), over international crimes such as genocide or torture (universal jurisdiction), or when its nationals are victims or perpetrators of crimes abroad (active or passive jurisdiction). It can also assume jurisdiction when an offense committed outside its territory seriously affects its national security, or if the accused is present in the country and can be prosecuted under its laws. Nevertheless, none of these exceptions seem applicable to the case of migrants deported to El Salvador, since they have not committed crimes in that country nor have been formally charged by Salvadoran authorities.
This raises a crucial question: who then has jurisdiction over the Venezuelans detained in El Salvador? The answer is not found in the national judicial systems of either the U.S. or El Salvador, but in the Inter-American Human Rights System, composed of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR).
El Salvador is a member State of the OAS and party to the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR), also known as the Pact of San José. Since 1995, the country has recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court, which means it has full jurisdiction over the Salvadoran State in human rights matters. The Commission can receive individual complaints about violations committed by El Salvador. If the State does not comply with its recommendations, the Commission can take the case to the Court, which has authority to issue binding judgments.
The Court can declare the international responsibility of the State for human rights violations and order reparations. These include compensation, institutional reforms, and guarantees of non-repetition. The indefinite detention, without legal process, of persons who have not committed offenses in Salvadoran territory nor have been formally charged by any court, constitutes a clear violation of rights to personal liberty, due process, and protection from arbitrary detention.
The situation of Venezuelans deported by the U.S. and incarcerated in El Salvador represents a serious international alert. The regional and international community is witnessing in real time a possible massive and systematic human rights violation. The affected individuals are deprived of liberty in a country that has not filed charges against them, under conditions denounced as inhumane and without access to effective judicial remedies.
If urgent action is not taken, this precedent could consolidate a practice of arbitrary extraterritorial detention and erode the basic principles of International Human Rights Law. The Inter-American system carries a historic responsibility to intervene and ensure that no State, however powerful, can evade its fundamental obligations toward persons under its jurisdiction or influence. Omission would not only be a legal failure but a betrayal of the hemispheric commitment to human dignity.