Supreme Court Orders Trump Administration to Facilitate Return of Wrongfully Deported Maryland Man
Washington, D.C.
In a unanimous decision on April 10, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court mandated that the Trump administration “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025. The ruling upholds a lower court’s directive and reinforces legal protections granted to Abrego Garcia in 2019, which barred his removal due to the risk of persecution in El Salvador. While no specific deadline for his return was set, the decision signals a significant rebuke of the administration’s handling of the case and raises broader concerns about immigration enforcement policies.
Background of the Case
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Salvadoran immigrant, had been living in Maryland since 2011. He worked as a sheet metal apprentice and lived with his U.S. citizen wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, and their three children, including a five-year-old son with autism. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal” due to the “clear probability of persecution” he would face from gangs in El Salvador. This legal protection allowed him to stay in the U.S. with a work permit, and he consistently complied with annual check-ins with immigration authorities, maintaining a clean criminal record.
On March 12, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained Abrego Garcia, allegedly linking him to the MS-13 gang, a claim his attorneys strongly denied. Three days later, he was deported to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (Cecot), a maximum-security prison, in a high-profile deportation flight that included suspected gang members. The Trump administration later admitted the deportation was an “administrative error,” acknowledging that it had violated the 2019 court order that should have prevented his removal.
The Legal Battle
Abrego Garcia’s family, supported by a legal team including Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, filed a lawsuit challenging the legality of his deportation. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled on April 4, 2025, that the deportation was “wholly lawless,” citing violations of federal immigration law and Abrego Garcia’s due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. She ordered the administration to “facilitate and effectuate” his return by April 7, 2025, a deadline that was later paused by Chief Justice John Roberts to allow the Supreme Court to review the case.
The Trump administration argued that Judge Xinis’s order exceeded judicial authority, claiming that it infringed on the executive branch’s control over foreign relations. Justice Department lawyers contended that the U.S. could not compel El Salvador, a sovereign nation, to release Abrego Garcia, who is detained under an agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador. They also raised unsubstantiated claims of Abrego Garcia’s gang affiliations as grounds for his deportation.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
In an unsigned opinion with no dissents, the Supreme Court upheld the essence of Judge Xinis’s order, affirming that the government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from detention in El Salvador. However, the Court raised concerns about the term “effectuate” in Xinis’s directive, suggesting it might overstep judicial authority in foreign affairs. The Court instructed Xinis to clarify her order, emphasizing deference to the executive branch in international negotiations.
The Court directed the administration to provide regular updates on steps taken to secure Abrego Garcia’s return. A hearing scheduled for April 11, 2025, will review progress on the case, with Judge Xinis pressing for transparency.
Implications and Reactions
The Supreme Court’s decision has been hailed as a victory for due process and the rule of law. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, representing Abrego Garcia’s family, celebrated the ruling, stating, “The Supreme Court upheld the District Judge’s order that the government has to bring Kilmar home.” Jennifer Vasquez Sura, Abrego Garcia’s wife, expressed relief but emphasized her determination, saying, “I will continue fighting until my husband is home.”
Critics of the Trump administration’s handling of immigration enforcement have called the deportation unjust. Judge Stephanie Thacker, in an earlier appeals court decision, noted that the U.S. government “has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process.”
Ongoing Concerns
Abrego Garcia remains in Cecot, a prison described as “one of the most dangerous in the Western Hemisphere.” His attorneys report no contact with him since his deportation, and efforts to locate him by a Salvadoran lawyer have failed. The lack of a firm deadline for his return has sparked criticism from human rights advocates, such as Elora Mukherjee of Columbia Law School, who argues that the ruling fails to fully protect Abrego Garcia’s rights.
Judge Xinis has ordered daily updates from the administration, demanding specifics on Abrego Garcia’s whereabouts and the steps taken to ensure his release. The April 11 hearing is expected to intensify scrutiny on the government’s compliance, with Xinis emphasizing the urgency of the situation.
Looking Forward
The Supreme Court’s decision sets an important precedent for accountability in immigration enforcement, underscoring that unlawful deportations cannot be dismissed as simple errors. For Abrego Garcia, the path to reuniting with his family remains uncertain, depending on diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and El Salvador. His case highlights the human cost of immigration policy missteps, leaving his family in limbo while the country watches to see how the administration will handle this mandate.
As the Trump administration works to comply with the Court’s ruling, the resolution of Abrego Garcia’s case may have lasting effects on public trust in the U.S. immigration system and shape future legal challenges surrounding deportation practices.
