On Sunday, the Department of Justice informed a federal judge of a rapidly evolving situation following the military’s dramatic late-night capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro. Maduro, who is now in the United States with his wife, faces charges related to “narco-terrorism conspiracy” and “cocaine importation conspiracy.” This unexpected turn of events has prompted the Trump administration to seek additional time to address issues in ongoing Alien Enemies Act litigation.

In a brief filed over the weekend, the government requested a one-week extension from Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg. Boasberg has previously faced obstacles in pursuing a contempt investigation related to potential violations of his orders last year. The request aims to allow the administration to “evaluate and determine what remedies are possible” given the current situation.

“Due to significant developments in Venezuela and the fluid nature of these events, the Defendants respectfully request an extension to respond to this Court’s Order directing them to propose a remedy by Monday, January 5,” the filing stated. “Over the weekend, the United States apprehended Nicolas Maduro, which has substantially altered the circumstances in Venezuela. As such, Defendants require more time to assess the feasibility of various proposals.”

With the response deadline set for today, Judge Boasberg addressed the matter on Monday morning. He noted that the government’s motion did not comply with Local Civil Rule 7(m). “The Court ORDERS that it shall file a Rule 7(m) Notice by 5:00 p.m. today,” he stated.

The referenced rule mandates that before filing any nondispositive motion in a civil case, attorneys must confer with opposing counsel in a sincere effort to identify any objections to the requested relief and, if necessary, narrow the scope of disagreement.

The cited rule states that “before filing any nondispositive motion in a civil action, counsel shall discuss the anticipated motion with opposing counsel in a good-faith effort to determine whether there is any opposition to the relief sought and, if there is, to narrow the areas of disagreement.”

“A party shall include in its motion a statement that the required discussion occurred, and a statement as to whether the motion is opposed,” the rule goes on.

The DOJ’s court filing referenced a Dec. 22 opinion and order, in which Boasberg said the Trump administration “shall submit its proposal either to facilitate the return of Plaintiffs to the United States or to otherwise provide them with hearings that satisfy the requirements of due process by January 5, 2026.”

In the opinion accompanying the order, Boasberg explained that the class action plaintiffs are 137 Venezuelan men that President Donald Trump proclaimed “Alien Enemies” in March and deported to the Terrorism Confinement Center — or CECOT — in El Salvador, despite the judge’s March 15 temporary restraining order.

“Nine months ago, six Venezuelan men were hustled out of a detention center in Texas, loaded onto planes, and shipped to an infamous mega-prison in El Salvador with no explanation and no opportunity to challenge the reason for their hasty removal. On behalf of themselves and a putative class of similarly situated detainees, they have turned to the courts to vindicate their constitutional right to due process,” the judge summarized. “These efforts have precipitated multiple trips up and down the assorted tiers of the federal judiciary, complicated by their subsequent transfer to and release in their native Venezuela. After the D.C. Circuit vacated this Court’s prior preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs have again moved for an order enjoining the Government to facilitate their return to the United States to pursue their individual habeas claims.”

Boasberg not only certified the plaintiffs as a class, but also found their due process rights were violated, and he ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate their ability to obtain” a hearing, as “[o]ur law requires no less.”

The DOJ now says that, in light of the Maduro “situation,” it needs an extension to analyze how facilitating those hearings can occur.

As Law&Crime has reported, Boasberg has been pressing for answers on just how the government pushed ahead on March 15 with AEA removals of the more than 100 Venezuelans whom the government alleged were affiliated with the Tren de Aragua gang. The judge’s contempt probe is currently stalled, as it largely has been for months on end, and a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel has yet to decide if he has the authority to move forward.