The Trump administration is facing legal challenges regarding its policy of sending migrants to Guantánamo Bay for immigration detention, highlighted by a lawsuit from human rights and immigrant advocacy groups, including the ACLU. The plaintiffs seek a judicial stay to block the transfer of 10 migrants, asserting the government’s claims of their criminality are false and that it lacks authority to detain them at Guantánamo. The lawsuit argues the policy is illegal, capricious, and violates due process rights, calling into question the cost-effectiveness of transporting migrants to the remote base. The case will likely be overseen by Judge Carl Nichols.
The Trump administration encountered its first direct legal opposition regarding the policy of transferring migrants to the U.S. military facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, for ongoing immigration detention, as a lawsuit was filed on Saturday by a coalition of human rights and immigrant advocacy organizations.
“The plaintiffs seek this court’s intervention to halt these cruel, unnecessary, and unlawful transfers to and detention at Guantánamo,” the newly filed complaint stated.
Led by the American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiffs are currently requesting a judicial stay to prevent the transfer of 10 migrants they have agreed to represent. However, the lawsuit seems to lay the groundwork for a broader challenge against the transfer policy, which presents many complex legal issues.
According to the lawsuit, the 10 migrants each have final removal orders and are from countries such as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Venezuela. The suit claims that none are gang members, and some have specifically faced threats of being transferred to Guantánamo.
“In justifying the transfers, the government has stated that the individuals sent to Guantánamo are gang members and dangerous criminals — the ‘worst of the worst,’” the complaint noted, referencing a January statement by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth.
The complaint added: “That characterization is outright false. It is also legally irrelevant because the government lacks the statutory authority to send any immigration detainees from the United States to Guantánamo.”
The Justice Department’s press office did not respond promptly to a request for comment.
This lawsuit is not the first to challenge facets of President Trump’s policy. Last month, a judge blocked the government from transferring three Venezuelan men held in immigration detention in New Mexico to the base, while a group of legal aid organizations sued the administration to ensure migrants there have access to attorneys.
However, neither of those cases directly questioned the legality of the entire policy. The latest lawsuit asserts that the government exceeds its authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act by relocating migrants to Cuban territory, and that it lacks the statutory authority to detain individuals outside the United States for immigration reasons.
Describing such transfers as “arbitrary and capricious,” the lawsuit also contends that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the migrants’ due process rights.
“It’s not just illegal, but also entirely illogical from a cost perspective, something this administration claims to care about,” stated Lee Gelernt of the American Civil Liberties Union, the lead attorney in the lawsuit. “The administration has had its Guantánamo photo ops, and now it’s time to move on.”
It remains unclear if there’s any definite policy benefit to the expenses incurred by taxpayers in transporting migrants to the remote island base, compared to housing them more economically on U.S. soil until deportation to their home countries.
Nonetheless, the operation has generated narratives that could serve as a deterrent message — a purpose Mr. Hegseth seemed to allude to last week during his visit to the base with a former Fox News colleague.
“The message is clear: If you break the law, if you are a criminal, you can end up at Guantánamo Bay,” Mr. Hegseth told Fox. “You don’t want to be at Guantánamo Bay, which is where we housed Al Qaeda after 9/11.”
On January 29, Mr. Trump directed the U.S. military and the Homeland Security Department to prepare to expand a migrant operations center at Guantánamo Bay, stating it would “provide additional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States.”
Shortly thereafter, the military began airlifting migrants to the base with near-daily flights from an immigration site in El Paso. Despite the Trump administration’s characterization of these migrants as criminals, only a few of those identified as transferred to the base have criminal histories.
The first 178 migrants taken there were all Venezuelan citizens, a group for whom deportation had been challenging due to deteriorating relations between its authoritarian regime and the United States.
However, the Trump administration managed to convince Venezuela to begin accepting its citizens back. On February 20, it abruptly terminated the detention operation, sending 177 migrants to Honduras where they were picked up by a Venezuelan plane and returned home. (One individual had been sent back to the United States earlier.)
Beginning with flights on February 23, the administration started transferring additional migrants, this time from a variety of other countries including Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Ecuador, according to a document reviewed by The New York Times. These individuals ranged in age from 23 to 62.
As of Friday morning, the military was detaining 26 migrants in a dormitory-style facility managed by the Coast Guard, designated for those considered “lower risk,” and 17 men in a war-on-terror prison called Camp 6, where those considered “high risk” were sent, according to a defense official authorized to speak on the matter.
This week, nine migrants were returned to the United States. Another flight arrived on Friday afternoon, but the details regarding the number of migrants onboard and their corresponding holding facilities remain unclear.
The new lawsuit is expected to be presided over by Judge Carl Nichols of the Federal District Court in Washington. Judge Nichols, a Trump appointee, was previously assigned to the legal access case, and the coalition filed this new lawsuit as a related issue. Mr. Gelernt is also the lead attorney for the earlier case.