Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily.

On Thursday, the ACLU filed an amended complaint with U.S. District Judge James Boasberg seeking to revive proceedings in his courtroom against the Trump administration. Boasberg had previously sought to block the Trump administration’s misuse of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to summarily deport Venezuelan migrants. On April 7, however, the Supreme Court held that migrants fighting deportation had to sue in the district where they are confined—mostly in Texas, far from Boasberg’s courtroom in D.C. Now the ACLU is back before Boasberg seeking a new preliminary injunction on behalf of plaintiffs who’ve already been unlawfully expelled to a Salvadoran prison.

Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern discussed the potentially immense consequences of this clever maneuver on this week’s Slate Plus bonus episode of Amicus. A preview of their conversation, below, has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Dahlia Lithwick: Let’s talk about what’s happening in Judge James Boasberg’s federal court in Washington, where the whole drama about these flights to CECOT began last month. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court lifted the classwide restraining order that Boasberg put into effect. The majority told the ACLU that it filed for relief in the wrong court and that migrants facing deportation under the Alien Enemies Act had to file habeas petitions in the districts where they’re being held. That was supposedly game over for Boasberg. He’s still doggedly pursuing criminal contempt proceedings against officials who allegedly defied his orders, but it seemed as though the action on the merits had moved elsewhere. 

Now we have news that the ACLU has gone right back to his court for another bite at the apple. They’ve amended their complaint to, among other things, make Andry Hernandez Romero a lead plaintiff. Romero is the openly gay hairdresser whom the government expelled to a Salvadoran prison. Now the ACLU says it’s not over in Judge Boasberg’s court, and they’re asking him to order everyone’s return from El Salvador. 

Mark Joseph Stern: This is a super smart move that almost certainly preserves Judge Boasberg’s jurisdiction over this case. Romero is now one of at least six plaintiffs named by the ACLU who are currently confined at CECOT in El Salvador, not an immigrant detention center in Texas or anywhere else within the United States. As professor Steve Vladeck points out, the Supreme Court has previously held that D.C.’s federal courts are the proper venue for habeas petitions brought by people held outside the U.S. So even though the Supreme Court has ruled that people being detained within the U.S. must file their petitions where they’re being held, those who are already in CECOT almost surely have a right to file in D.C.’s federal courts. That means Judge Boasberg’s courtroom, since he was already assigned to this ongoing case.

What the ACLU did here was expand the class of plaintiffs that it’s representing to encompass those confined overseas. ACLU attorneys said: We understand that we can’t argue on behalf of people held in Texas in your court. They have to go through federal courts in Texas. But we have at least 238 people already sent to CECOT. They have to be able to sue somewhere. And it should be here. That’s based on precedent established, in part, during Guantánamo litigation years ago. And we know people imprisoned in El Salvador can still sue because the Supreme Court already allowed Kilmar Abrego Garcia to file suit, through his lawyers, even though he’s currently in a Salvadoran prison.

At a minimum, this move should preserve Judge Boasberg’s ongoing ability to preside over this case. It also lets him issue further orders saying that these individuals are in the “constructive custody” of the United States. And, ideally, it will allow him to rule that this entire class of people must be returned home, or at least be afforded the due process that the Supreme Court said they must receive.

Mark Joseph Stern Read More

I want to make explicit what’s implicit here. The administration continues to take the legal position: Too bad, so sad, there’s nothing we can do in El Salvador, there’s nowhere these people can go to seek redress. So it’s especially important that the ACLU has upped the ante. It’s telling Judge Boasberg that he’s still in charge of this case and reminding him that the Supreme Court has rejected the government’s arguments that there’s simply nothing it can do to get anyone back. It feels like the lawyers are very much trying to keep this alive after the court has said it’s inadequate for the government to claim the plaintiffs have simply disappeared and have no recourse. 

This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only How Sam Alito Inadvertently Revealed His Own Homophobia From the Bench The Courage to Be Decent This Content is Available for Slate Plus members only The Worst Person in the Trump Cabinet Could Have Been Anyone. No One Expected It to Be Him. Trump Has a New Plan for Ukraine. Hoo Boy.

It also means the ACLU doesn’t have to start from square one. We already know Judge Boasberg thinks the Alien Enemies Act likely does not apply to these plaintiffs. We know Judge Boasberg thinks these individuals have a constitutional right to due process before they’re deported to El Salvador. And the Supreme Court has affirmed that aspect of his decision unanimously by saying they must receive due process. Of course, we know they were denied due process on March 15 when they were unlawfully loaded onto these planes, sent off to El Salvador, and deposited in a prison in direct violation of Boasberg’s orders.

But until this latest filing, Judge Boasberg could only assist them through his criminal contempt proceedings. He had told the government that it could “purge” contempt by asserting custody over these individuals, which would allow them to fight for their release from CECOT and return to the United States. Now he has a more direct path to say that these people have been denied their constitutional rights and the government must fix that. And he can continue to pursue criminal contempt proceedings at the same time. He could even remove the option to purge contempt now that it’s no longer necessary to cajole the government into assisting the plaintiffs. He could simply charge ahead with contempt proceedings.

That’s just my speculation—I don’t know exactly how he’ll handle it. But he holds a lot more cards than he did last week. And I think it’s always a good thing when Judge Boasberg is holding more cards.

Get the best of news and politics Sign up for Slate’s evening newsletter.