Court Blocks Bid to Stop El Salvador Prison Transfers
Noncitizens were transferred from US custody into Salvadoran prisons, cut off from lawyers, and held in harsh conditions. A coalition of legal organizations sued to stop it. In September 2026, a federal judge refused to reopen the case — and the reason matters for anyone trying to challenge US deportation policy in court.
What if the lawsuit meant to protect immigrants from being sent to Salvadoran prisons has already been dismissed — and the court just refused to reopen it? That is exactly what happened. On September 2, 2026, Judge James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion to reconsider his earlier ruling, leaving in place a decision that dismissed a challenge to the US–El Salvador transfer arrangement.
What the case was about
Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and other organizations sued the State Department over a diplomatic agreement that allowed the US government to transfer noncitizens from US custody into Salvadoran prisons. The groups said their clients were denied access to lawyers and subjected to abusive conditions. They asked the court to cancel the agreement and stop its enforcement.
Immigration Deadlines 2026 — Free
Download PDF with all key dates
The court dismissed the case in March 2026, finding that the organizations lacked legal standing — specifically, that canceling the agreement would not actually fix the harm. The reason: the government already had independent legal authority under federal statutes to remove noncitizens to third countries and pay those countries to accept them. The agreement itself carried no binding legal force. Canceling it would not stop the transfers.
The organizations asked the court to reconsider. The court said no. It pointed to a fresh ruling from the D.C. Circuit — Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Mullin, decided in August 2026 — which reached the same conclusion in a similar case involving parolees and expedited removal. In both cases, the plaintiffs challenged a specific policy document but left untouched the underlying statutory authority that made the challenged conduct possible. That gap, the court said, is fatal to any claim for relief.
What to do
- If you or someone you know was transferred to a Salvadoran prison from US custody, contact an immigration attorney immediately. The legal challenge through this lawsuit is no longer active, but individual cases may still have options.
- If you are in removal proceedings (the formal process where a judge decides whether you can be deported), ask your attorney whether your case involves any third-country transfer risk and what statutory authorities the government may rely on.
- Organizations providing legal services to detained immigrants should document any denial of attorney access — this evidence may support future litigation that challenges the underlying statutory authority, not just a diplomatic agreement.
- Follow updates from Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights and similar groups, as they may file new legal challenges that address the standing problem the court identified.
What to do, step by step — see our guide “Immigration Court Rulings”.
Fishkin Law Firm, New York
This ruling is a warning about how you frame a lawsuit. The court did not say the transfers were legal — it said the plaintiffs asked for the wrong relief. If you challenge a policy document but leave the underlying statute untouched, a court will likely dismiss your case for lack of standing, even if the conduct you are challenging is harmful. Future litigation needs to directly attack the statutory authority the government relies on, not just the diplomatic agreement built on top of it. If you or a client faces a third-country transfer, speak with an immigration attorney who can assess all available legal avenues, including habeas corpus petitions filed in the district where the person is detained.
Frequently Asked Questions
What does 'lack of standing' mean, and why did it end this lawsuit?
Standing is the legal right to bring a case to court. To have standing, you must show that a court ruling would actually fix your problem. Here, the court said that canceling the US–El Salvador agreement would not stop the transfers, because the government had separate legal authority under federal statutes to do the same thing. No fix, no standing, no case.
Does this ruling mean the El Salvador transfers are legal?
No. The court did not rule on whether the transfers were lawful. It only said the plaintiffs did not have the right to bring this particular lawsuit in this particular way. The legality of the transfers under US and international law remains an open question.
Can anyone file a new lawsuit to challenge these transfers?
Yes, but the court's reasoning suggests a new lawsuit would need to directly challenge the federal statutes that give the government authority to remove people to third countries — not just the diplomatic agreement. That is a harder legal argument, but it is the one the court said was missing here.
If I am in immigration detention, can I be transferred to a prison in another country?
The government has claimed broad authority to remove noncitizens to third countries, including countries they are not from. If you are detained, you have the right to speak with a lawyer before removal. An immigration attorney can file an emergency motion to stop a transfer while your case is reviewed.