The Trump administration has approached the Supreme Court in a bid to prevent an order from a Maryland federal judge mandating the return of a man mistakenly deported to El Salvador. This request arrives amid criticism from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which denied the Department of Justice’s appeal, firmly stating the government’s action violated due process principles.
The man in question, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, was granted withholding of removal in 2019, precluding his deportation due to threats to his safety in El Salvador. Despite this, he found himself in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody on March 12, eventually transported to a high-security prison in El Salvador, renowned for its harsh conditions. Since his deportation, Abrego Garcia’s whereabouts and wellbeing remain unknown.
Represented by legal counsel, Abrego Garcia’s family sought judicial intervention in Maryland, arguing for his immediate return. Although the federal government recognized the deportation as erroneous, it maintains that the district court overstepped its jurisdiction by attempting to mandate negotiations with a foreign government.
The urgency of the situation is underscored by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’s requirement for the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return by midnight on the stated date. Judge Xinis voiced her disapproval of the government’s actions, citing a lack of legal basis for detention and deportation, especially to such perilous conditions.
In response, U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer characterized the judge’s directive as an unprecedented challenge that could strain diplomatic relations. The Justice Department’s filing underlines concerns over judicial intervention in foreign affairs, arguing the impracticality of meeting the mandated deadline due to the complexities of international diplomacy (view document).
Moreover, the government has portrayed Abrego Garcia as affiliated with the internationally recognized criminal gang MS-13, a claim he and legal advocates strenuously deny, pointing to flimsy evidence as part of their defense. Judge Xinis’s decisions emphasize the questionable nature of these allegations, supporting the call for prompt rectification of the deportation error.
This article was initially published on Howe on the Court and further detailed on SCOTUSblog.