In a pivotal legal development, a federal judge in New Mexico has temporarily halted the transfer of three Venezuelan migrants from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility to the military prison at Guantánamo Bay. This decision came after the migrants filed for a temporary restraining order, citing a high risk of imminent transfer, which the court honored by granting the relief on Sunday.
The case, presided over by Chief Judge Kenneth Gonzales, questioned the US government’s intention to transfer these migrants under the recent policy expansions proposed by President Trump. The proposal envisioned relocating over 30,000 migrants to Guantánamo as part of an extended initiative to manage immigration.] Guantánamo Bay has already received an unspecified number of migrants, reportedly more than fifty, following the controversial policy’s implementation last week.
Legal representatives from the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) argued that, although US law technically supports court jurisdiction over habeas petitions—even when detainees have been moved to Guantánamo—it remains uncertain whether the current administration would respect these legal boundaries. Concerns were also raised regarding the impact such a transfer would have on the detainees’ ability to access legal counsel effectively.
The order issued by Judge Gonzales is narrowly applied to the three petitioners. He emphasized, “the Court cannot say that without this injunction it would not be jurisdictionally deprived to preside over the original writ of habeas corpus should petitioners be transferred.” Thus, affirming the temporary restraining order was necessary under the circumstances. Despite the decision’s limited application, CCR attorney Jessica Vosburgh, in a press release, commended the judges’ ruling characterizing it as a refusal to allow their clients to be pawns in what she termed as a “punishment theater.” Meanwhile, CCR’s legal director Baher Azmy described the outcome as a “small but important win for clients otherwise bound to the latest iteration of a legal black hole,” as noted in his statement.
This legal contest is part of broader challenges against the expanding use of Guantánamo Bay for detainees not initially connected with terrorism-related activities. More insights are available in this report.