President Donald Trump listens to a question from a reporter before signing an executive order in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Monday, March 31, 2025 (Pool via AP).
Attorneys for a Venezuelan father of two on Wednesday filed the first petition for a writ of habeas corpus seeking the direct release of an individual being confined at a notorious prison in El Salvador which has become the Trump administration‘s destination of choice for immigrants summarily deported under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA).
Edicson David Quintero Chacón, 28, is described in the 36-page filing as a “skilled carpenter and fisherman” who has been working since he was 12 years old and who comes from a “family of modest means.”
Quintero came to the United States in April 2024, immediately surrendered himself to immigration authorities at the U.S.-Mexico border, and found himself released under the purview of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to the petition. Over subsequent check-ins, an ankle monitor put in place for immigration compliance was removed, he was released from custody, taken back into custody in June 2024, accused of gang affiliations, and detained in Georgia.
In February, Quintero filed his first habeas petition in the Peach State. In March, he was one of some 260 immigrants sent to the Centro de Confinamiento de Terrorismo (CECOT) in El Salvador in defiance of a court order.
Now, in the aftermath of his removal to the foreign prison, Quintero’s attorneys are following the U.S. Supreme Court’s guidance in the related case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father with protected status who the government admittedly wrongfully deported as part of the flights to CECOT.
“Mr. Quintero’s continuing detention — now approaching a year — is lawless. There is no statutory authority that could possibly justify his continued custody under or by color of the authority of the U.S. government, let alone at CECOT,” the petition reads. “Respondents’ detention of Mr. Quintero at CECOT also runs afoul of the bedrock due process prohibitions on arbitrary, punitive, and indefinite civil detention.”
Represented by lawyers with the American Immigration Council, the habeas petition pulls no punches in describing the presumed dire circumstances of Quintero’s detention in relation to U.S. law.
“He is confined incommunicado in a prison widely regarded to be a site of inhumane conditions and torture,” the filing continues. “Mr. Quintero was ordered removed to Venezuela by an immigration judge, and he stated a willingness to submit to deportation to Venezuela. Instead of effectuating his deportation to Venezuela, Respondents are paying for Mr. Quintero’s torture in El Salvador with U.S. taxpayer dollars in flagrant violation of the United States Constitution.”
Understood by the nation’s high court, habeas “has traditionally been a means to secure release from unlawful detention” and is a “means of contesting the lawfulness of restraint and securing release.”
Under the basic habeas standard, federal courts consider whether any given detention violates federal law or the U.S. Constitution.
Quintero’s lawyers say his detention in CECOT violates both — specifically the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the “Great Writ” itself.
In the present case, the petitioner has not been charged with, tried for, or convicted of any crime, the filing notes. Instead, Quintero is subject to a removal order — and has expressed his desire to be returned to Venezuela. The government maintains Quintero has been “removed” and is, effectively, looking to wash its hands of the case, according to the petition.
But, Quintero’s lawyers argue, by “paying the Salvadoran government $6 million to hold people for a renewable one-year term” the Trump administration has, legally, placed each detainee in a situation akin to so-called “enemy combatants” held at Guantanamo Bay. There, people who have never set foot in the country are allowed to file habeas petitions, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled.
And, in Quintero’s case, his prolonged detention is only a function of the U.S. government’s agreement with El Salvador, his lawyers argue.
“Respondents have contracted with the Salvadoran government to detain him: they requested, arranged, and paid for his detention at CECOT and physically delivered him there, and there is no other basis for his continuing custody,” the petition goes on.
The filing also argues the mere fact of detention at CECOT, while “under or by color of the authority of the United States,” lacks “any statutory or constitutional authority” and is ultra vires — or beyond the law-granted power and authority of the government in the first place.
“CECOT is a legal black hole; there is no access to counsel, no visitation, and no way for anyone on the outside to communicate with Mr. Quintero,” the petition reads. “According to the Salvadoran government, people held at CECOT ‘will never leave.’ Human Rights Watch, which investigates human rights abuses globally, ‘is not aware of any detainees who have been released from that prison.””
The never-ending nature of Quintero’s detention means his presence in CECOT is in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the petition argues.
“Arbitrary civil detention is categorically unconstitutional,” the petition goes on. “The Due Process Clause requires that any deprivation of Mr. Quintero’s liberty serve, at minimum, a legitimate purpose.”
The petition elaborates, at length:
Civil immigration detention must be reasonably related to the statutory purpose of effectuating removal. When removal has already occurred, detention is no longer reasonably related to that purpose. Prolonged civil detention without robust procedural protections similarly violates the Due Process Clause, particularly when it is potentially indefinite or permanent. Civil detention may not be punitive in nature or intent. Mr. Quintero’s continuing detention by Respondents amounts to a substantive due process violation because it is not tied to any legitimate governmental purpose, as he was already removed from the United States. Alternatively, if he is not considered “removed” from the United States, his continuing indefinite detention still serves no legitimate purpose because it is not in service of effectuating his removal.
Additionally, the petition claims Quintero’s continued detention is illegal under federal law because the INA generally mandates release from detention if an immigrant has not been deported within 90 days of a final removal order being issued. Here, the petitioner’s attorneys note that the likely indefinite nature of CECOT detention is an obvious violation of this rule and that no U.S. law authorizes the government “to detain a noncitizen after they have been removed.”
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
The petition asks a Georgia federal court to assume jurisdiction, declare Quintero’s detention broadly illegal, enjoin his further detention and “[g]rant a writ of habeas corpus ordering Respondents to immediately release Mr. Quintero from their custody and facilitate and effectuate his prompt return and release into the United States or facilitate and effectuate his prompt removal and release to Venezuela.”
