President Donald Trump smiles as he speaks in the Oval Office of the White House, Tuesday, May 20, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Alex Brandon).
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Friday paused a lower court’s orders requiring the government to reveal key details about its relationship with El Salvadoran officials in the context of Alien Enemies Act (AEA) deportations.
That win for the Trump administration could now be the final word in the case – as notices of dismissal soon followed the ruling.
In a terse, one-page order, a three-judge panel issued an administrative stay “pending appeal,” which put the kibosh on two separate disclosure orders issued by U.S. District Judge Keith P. Ellison, a Bill Clinton appointee, earlier this week.
On Thursday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi filed motions under seal with the district court and the court of appeals, making necessarily secretive arguments as to why the lower court’s orders should be stayed in the habeas corpus case brought by attorneys for Venezuelan refugee Widmer Josneyder Agelviz-Sanguino, 24.
The appellate court’s order means the government will no longer have to provide a laundry list of details about the notorious prison in El Salvador known as the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT).
In the underlying case, also filed under seal, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus was submitted by Agelviz-Sanguino’s legal team earlier this month after his name appeared on a flight manifest of the 238 men sent to CECOT in violation of a bench ruling by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg.
On Monday, following a hearing, Ellison issued an order requiring the government to confirm Agelviz-Sanguino’s whereabouts and establishing his access to legal counsel.
The initial order required the government to file a declaration within 24 hours “confirming the current location and health status of Agelviz-Sanguino, as well as the legal basis for his continued detention.” Additionally, the judge required the government to restore “and help maintain attorney-client communication between Agelviz-Sanguino and his counsel” as well as 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, to be filed within 72 hours, detailing what steps the government took to comply with the order “including any logistical arrangements made with El Salvadoran authorities.”
The judge, however, foresaw some issues and offered caveats – giving the government additional work to do if they were unable to establish communication with Agelviz-Sanguino due to Salvadoran officials.
Bondi, for her part, quickly filed for, and quickly received, extensions of time to comply. But when the government finally filed their motion regarding compliance, Ellison was not at all pleased.
“Defendants’ declaration provided no meaningful information regarding Plaintiff Agelviz-Sanguino’s location, health, or the legal basis for his detention,” the court noted late Wednesday. “The U.S. Embassy’s purported inquiry to El Salvadoran authorities—unsupported by details or evidence—does not satisfy the Court’s previous order.”
On Wednesday, the court issued a much more stringent and detailed order – giving the government even more work to do and singling out granular information about CECOT and the AEA that needed to be included in their next submissions.
The appeal to the Fifth Circuit – and a concomitant motion to stay pending appeal – spelled an immediate end to those inquests; later developments appear to have ended the matter completely.
On May 23, after the government appealed, attorneys for the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal as to “All Defendants” on the lower court’s docket. That document, however, is not a matter of public record.
The circuit court’s docket also contains the following entry from that same day: “LETTER filed advising the court of the voluntary dismissal in the lower court.” Again, the document is not publicly available.
The dockets for the case – at both the district court and appellate court level – are both largely sealed as of this writing. So, exactly why the case seems to have ended is presently unclear.
Law&Crime reached out to Agelviz-Sanguino’s attorneys for comment on this story but no response was immediately forthcoming at the time of publication.
