WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE JUDGE WHO AURTHORIZED THE MADURO CAPTURE

1. The public record: capture described as an executive decision, not a judicial warrant

Every major account in the provided reporting frames Nicolás Maduro’s seizure as the culmination of months of covert planning, CIA intelligence work and a military raid launched after President Trump gave the final order — not as an action executed under an explicit judicial warrant authorizing extraterritorial force ^{[1] [2] [3]}. News outlets detail Trump’s role in approving strikes and the use of Delta Force and CIA assets to locate and seize Maduro, and consistently describe the operation as carried out on presidential authority and in support of criminal charges, not as a judge-authorized overseas arrest warrant enforcement ^{[6] [2]}.

2. The criminal case and court assignment: Hellerstein’s name appears in filings, but not as a capture authorizer

Reporting about the U.S. prosecution that underpins the government’s stated legal rationale identifies an indictment filed by the Justice Department and notes that criminal proceedings in New York are involved; CBS reports the case is assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein ^{[4] [5]}. That assignment indicates which federal court will handle prosecution, arraignment and pretrial matters, but none of the supplied sources say Judge Hellerstein issued an authorization for the military operation in Venezuela or signed an extraterritorial arrest warrant that led troops to carry out the seizure ^{[4] [5]}.

3. Administration’s legal framing and outside analysis: presidential authority and DOJ theory, not judicial imprimatur

Officials and legal commentators cited in the coverage are pointing to Department of Justice indictments and to theories of presidential authority to support extraterritorial arrests; commentary notes the administration’s position merges DOJ criminal process with inherent executive power, a legal argument that has been contested and has not been definitively blessed by the courts ^{[7] [8]}. Analysts emphasize that the administration appears to rely on executive authority combined with criminal charges rather than on any foreign or domestic judge issuing a direct order to seize a sitting foreign head of state ^{[7] [9]}.

4. International and procedural gaps: absence of a named judicial authorizer in available reporting

Coverage from Reuters, AP, CNN, The Guardian, Time and others underscores the diplomatic and legal controversy around the operation — including questions about consent from Venezuelan authorities, sovereign immunity, and whether any foreign government authorized the action — but none cite a judge who authorized the capture itself ^{[9] [1] [2] [10]}. Where courts do appear is in the description of the underlying indictment and the expected U.S. prosecutorial process; those are distinct from a judicial authorization to use force overseas, which the current reporting does not document ^{[5] [8]}.

5. Conclusion: no judge identified by the sources as having authorized the capture

Based on the provided reporting, it is accurate to state that no judge is named as having authorized the Maduro capture; the action is reported as an executive-branch military operation ordered by President Trump and underpinned by a DOJ indictment now assigned to Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein for criminal proceedings, but the sources do not attribute judicial authorization of the raid to Hellerstein or any other judge ^{[2] [4] [5]}. If a reader seeks confirmation of whether a specific judge signed an arrest warrant or similar authorization prior to the raid, that detail is not present in the available sources and would require further official records or court filings to verify.