On Thursday, the Supreme Court upheld a lower-court decision requiring the Trump administration to “facilitate” the release of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to a mega-prison in El Salvador last month. The situation has sparked significant debate surrounding the administration's mass-deportation policies.
A District Court judge had initially ordered that Abrego García be returned to the United States by Monday night. However, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a temporary pause shortly before this deadline, allowing the justices time to consider the government's request to block the order. In a brief ruling on Thursday evening, the Supreme Court confirmed that the lower court “properly requires the Government to 'facilitate’ Abrego García’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled appropriately, as if he had not been improperly deported.”
It is important to note that the Supreme Court's ruling does not guarantee Abrego García's immediate return. The justices requested the lower court judge to clarify her initial order, emphasizing that the Trump administration should be ready to “share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps” regarding his return.
The case has emerged as a critical flashpoint concerning President Donald Trump’s mass-deportation initiatives. Abrego García’s attorneys have described their client as a victim of a “Kafkaesque mistake.” Critics argue that the government’s stance—claiming that a judge has no authority to order his return—raises alarming possibilities that non-citizens could be deported to foreign nations with minimal recourse.
In a related immigration ruling earlier this week, the Supreme Court lifted a block on the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members. However, the court mandated that the government provide potential deportees with notice of their planned removal and an opportunity to challenge it legally.
Abrego García, a Salvadoran immigrant married to a U.S. citizen, was deported on March 15 despite a court ruling forbidding his removal. His attorneys have expressed serious concerns for his safety, stating that he faces severe risks in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, which houses many gang members. Abrego García fled El Salvador as a teenager due to gang threats and extortion attempts against his mother.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, Abrego García’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, remarked, “The rule of law prevailed. The Supreme Court upheld the District Judge’s order that the government must bring Kilmar home. Now they need to stop wasting time and get moving.”
The court's three liberal justices criticized the Trump administration for its suggestion that it could leave Abrego García in a Salvadoran prison for “no reason recognized by the law.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, pointed out that the government’s argument implies it could deport any individual, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequences if done before judicial intervention.
The Supreme Court also directed U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to elaborate on her initial order, particularly regarding how the Trump administration should “effectuate” Abrego García’s return. The justices cautioned that she may have overstepped her authority by infringing on the president’s powers concerning foreign affairs.
Trump administration officials alleged that Abrego García is affiliated with the MS-13 gang based on unverified reports from a confidential informant. However, his attorneys maintain that he is not a gang member and has no criminal history in either the United States or El Salvador. The administration has labeled Abrego García’s deportation an “administrative error,” arguing that little can be done to reverse it since he is now in the custody of a foreign government, despite having been deported through a detention agreement negotiated by the Trump administration with El Salvador.
In an unusual turn of events, a veteran Justice Department lawyer was suspended after confirming in court that Abrego García's deportation was a mistake, stating he struggled to obtain answers as to why this father of three was sent abroad. Following this, the government distanced itself from the lawyer's comments, suggesting they did not represent the official stance of the United States.
Abrego García’s attorneys argued that the government’s attempt to dispute the lawyer's damaging comments reflects the precariousness of their position. Furthermore, for the first time, the government claimed that El Salvador might have its own “legal rationales” for detaining alleged members of foreign terrorist groups like MS-13. Abrego García’s attorneys countered this argument, highlighting that their client had not lived in his home country since he was 16 and has no criminal record there.
In a letter to the Supreme Court, Abrego García’s attorneys stated that the court's emphasis on due process and the necessity of judicial review reinforces their client's need for a remedy after being removed without adequate notice or the chance to challenge his deportation, which violated a court order prohibiting his removal.
Judge Paula Xinis has condemned the government’s handling of Abrego García’s case as “wholly lawless.” A unanimous opinion from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit upheld Xinis’s order, asserting that the U.S. Government lacks the legal authority to remove a person lawfully present in the country without due process. The panel described the government's argument as “unconscionable.”
In a poignant remark, Abrego García’s attorneys likened his predicament to a “Kafkaesque mistake,” emphasizing the absurdity of his situation as he remains trapped in a foreign prison due to the actions of the United States government.
