The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday issued a temporary pause on a lower court’s orders that had required the government to disclose key information regarding its dealings with El Salvadoran officials in the context of deportations carried out under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). This decision marks a victory for the Trump administration, and notices of dismissal in the case soon followed the ruling, suggesting a possible end to the legal dispute.
In a concise, one-page order, a three-judge panel granted an administrative stay “pending appeal,” effectively halting two separate disclosure orders that had been issued by U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison earlier in the week.
On Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi filed sealed motions with both the district court and the court of appeals, presenting arguments under confidentiality as to why the lower court’s orders should be stayed. These arguments were made in the habeas corpus case brought by attorneys representing Widmer Josneyder Agelviz-Sanguino, a 24-year-old Venezuelan refugee.
The appellate court’s order means the government is no longer obligated to provide an extensive list of details concerning the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), a facility in El Salvador. The underlying case, also under seal, involved a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Agelviz-Sanguino’s legal team earlier in May. This action was taken after his name appeared on a flight manifest of 238 men who were sent to CECOT, allegedly in violation of a prior ruling by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.
Following a hearing on Monday, Judge Ellison had issued an order mandating that the government confirm Agelviz-Sanguino’s location and ensure his access to legal counsel. The initial order required the government to file a declaration within 24 hours confirming his current location, health status, and the legal basis for his continued detention. Furthermore, the judge directed the government to restore and maintain attorney-client communication between Agelviz-Sanguino and his counsel, as well as to provide his legal team with direct contact information for CECOT, including a designated point of contact responsible for ensuring compliance, within 48 hours. The order also required a progress report within 72 hours, detailing the steps taken by the government to comply, including any logistical arrangements made with El Salvadoran authorities.
However, Judge Ellison had anticipated potential complications, offering caveats and requiring additional action from the government if they were unable to establish communication with Agelviz-Sanguino due to issues with Salvadoran officials.
Attorney General Bondi subsequently requested and received extensions of time to comply with the court’s orders. However, when the government finally filed its motion regarding compliance, Judge Ellison expressed significant dissatisfaction. In a ruling late Wednesday, the court noted that the government’s declaration provided no meaningful information regarding Agelviz-Sanguino’s location, health, or the legal basis for his detention. The court stated that the U.S. Embassy’s inquiry to El Salvadoran authorities, which was unsupported by specific details or evidence, did not satisfy the previous order. Consequently, on Wednesday, the court issued a more detailed and stringent order, requiring the government to provide specific information about CECOT and the AEA in their next submissions.
The appeal to the Fifth Circuit and the accompanying motion to stay the proceedings pending appeal brought an immediate halt to these inquiries. Subsequent developments appear to have resolved the matter entirely. On May 23, following the government’s appeal, attorneys for the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal concerning “All Defendants” on the lower court’s docket. However, this document is not publicly available.
The circuit court’s docket also contains an entry from the same day advising the court of the voluntary dismissal of the case in the lower court. This document is also currently not publicly accessible.
As of the time of this writing, the dockets for the case at both the district court and appellate court levels remain largely sealed. Therefore, the precise reasons for the apparent conclusion of the case are currently unclear. Law&Crime has reached out to Agelviz-Sanguino’s attorneys for comment on this story, but no response was immediately available.
Discussion about this post