NEW YORK – Lawyers for ousted Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro are preparing to ask a federal judge to dismiss the criminal case against him, arguing that he was protected by head-of-state or sovereign immunity when U.S. forces captured him in Caracas and brought him to the United States.
The planned motion is real and forms part of a preliminary schedule jointly proposed by Maduro’s defense team and federal prosecutors. The defense is expected to file its immunity-based request by September 2, 2026, while oral arguments could be held in November. Both sides have provisionally proposed beginning the trial in June 2027, although U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein must approve the final timetable.
Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured by U.S. forces during an operation in Caracas on January 3, 2026, and transported to New York. Both have pleaded not guilty and remain detained at a federal jail in Brooklyn. They face charges that include narcoterrorism conspiracy, conspiracy to import cocaine and weapons-related offenses.
The central question in the defense motion will be whether Maduro was legally entitled to immunity from prosecution as Venezuela’s serving head of state at the time of his capture.
His attorneys are expected to argue that Maduro continued to regard himself as Venezuela’s legitimate president and was therefore protected by international rules granting immunity to certain foreign leaders while in office. Maduro has repeatedly described his removal from Venezuela as a kidnapping and has called himself a prisoner of war.
Federal prosecutors are expected to counter that the United States stopped recognizing Maduro as Venezuela’s legitimate president in 2019. They are also likely to argue that facilitating cocaine trafficking and cooperating with armed criminal organizations could not qualify as legitimate official acts protected by immunity.
The immunity argument is considered difficult but not automatically frivolous. U.S. courts have previously rejected similar claims when the American government did not recognize the defendant as a legitimate foreign leader. The prosecution of former Panamanian ruler Manuel Noriega, who was captured during the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, is expected to be an important precedent in the dispute.
Even if the court determines that Maduro held some form of official immunity, Judge Hellerstein would still have to decide whether that protection could cover the alleged criminal conduct described in the indictment.
Maduro’s lawyers are also preparing to challenge the legality of the Caracas operation that brought him into U.S. custody. Defense attorney Barry Pollack has characterized the operation as a military abduction that violated international law.
That challenge may also face significant legal obstacles. American courts have generally allowed criminal prosecutions to proceed even when defendants argue that they were unlawfully seized abroad, although the unprecedented circumstances surrounding Maduro’s capture could produce extensive litigation.
The upcoming motion will not result in Maduro’s automatic release. It represents an attempt to end the prosecution before prosecutors present their evidence to a jury.
The first major legal battle will therefore focus not on whether Maduro committed the alleged offenses, but on whether a U.S. court has the authority to prosecute him at all.