In one of the most recent battles between the federal courts and the Trump administration, the fate of a Maryland resident is at hand. During this case, administrative errors occurred, attorneys were put on administrative leave, and foreign policy was at stake — all while the Supreme Court intervened between a federal district court and the president’s administration. But who is the case revolving around in the first place, and what does this mean for U.S. law and legal precedent going forward?
On March 14, President Donald Trump invoked an 18th-century wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act. In his proclamation, the president declared that many members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua have “unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.” This enabled the deportation of hundreds of alleged gang members from the U.S. to a high-security prison in El Salvador. Flights out of the U.S. included those accused of being members of the MS-13 gang as well.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran residing in Maryland, was one of the men deported to El Salvador in March. According to the New York Times, Garcia lived in El Salvador until 2011. His father was a patrolman; however, local gangs posed a threat to the family, so Garcia came to the U.S. undocumented, joining his brother, a U.S. citizen, in Maryland, reported the NYT. After coming to the U.S., Garcia found work in the construction industry and met his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, and the couple began what would become their family of five.
However, in March 2019, Garcia was taken into custody by police officers and later by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE. During this time, a confidential informant from New York state accused Garcia of being a member of the MS-13 gang, reported NPR. But given that Garcia never lived in New York and that it was risky for him to return to El Salvador, he was not charged or convicted, and an immigration judge granted him the status of “withholding of removal,” which legally protects him from being sent back in October 2019.
On March 12, nearly six years after he was initially taken into custody, Garcia was arrested again. This time, immigration officers told him that his status had been revoked, said the NYT. He was quickly sent to a deportation center in Texas and then to an infamous mega-prison in El Salvador, where Sura recognized her husband due to a photo in the news.
But if Garcia had been given legal protection, why would he have ended up back in El Salvador? On multiple accounts, the Trump administration admitted that Garcia’s deportation was an “administrative error,” however, they would not be making any attempts to bring him back to the United States. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed this during a press conference, stating that although Garcia’s deportation was an administrative error, he “will not be returning to our country,” and accused him of human trafficking and leading MS-13 efforts. Similarly, the Associated Press reports that Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that despite the administrative error, “ICE testified that [Garcia] was a gang member” and that “he should stay where he is.” These allegations come even though Garcia doesn’t have a criminal record in any country, nor has the Department of Justice presented any evidence otherwise, reports NPR.
So, what has happened in the courts? On April 4, U.S. Federal District Judge Paula Xinis heard arguments from Garcia’s lawyers, arguing for his return to the United States, given that he has no criminal record and legal protection from being in El Salvador. The Department of Justice only addressed jurisdiction concerns, saying that doing so would interfere with foreign policy and El Salvador’s sovereignty, which a federal district court does not have authority over.
When pressed on why, DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni said he asked his client the same question and that “I have not received, to date, an answer that is satisfactory,” NPR reported. Instead, Reuveni asked Judge Xinis to hold off a ruling on the case for another 24 hours so that the administration could change its positions, saying, “that’s my recommendation to my client, but so far that hasn’t happened,” reports POLITICO. That Sunday, it was announced that Reuveni had been put on administrative leave by Deputy Attorney Todd Blanche. According to the NYT, Bondi said, “at my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” and “any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.”
Still, the hearing ended on April 4 with Xinis ordering that Garcia be brought back to the U.S. by midnight April 7, saying that Garcia’s detention was “wholly lawless” and that saying that there was “no legal authority to arrest him” and “no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador,” reported NPR. The Trump administration maintained its position that the federal district court was reaching outside the scope of its power and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit for an emergency stay. NPR reported that the panel backed Xinis’s ruling, unanimously denying the DOJ’s request. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote, “It takes no small amount of imagination to understand that this is a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone.”
The DOJ appealed the order again, and on April 7, Chief Justice John Roberts stayed Xinis’s order until the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on the case. On April 10, the Supreme Court sent the case back to Xinis, mostly upholding her order in an order of their own which said “The order properly requires the government to ‘facilitate’ Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador” and that “the government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.” However, the Justices also asked Xinis to clarify some of the wording in the original order, “with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”
But tensions rose the next day on April 11. Given the Supreme Court’s instructions, Xinis told the Justice Department to submit plans for retrieving Garcia by 9:30 a.m. and set a hearing for 1 p.m., said the NYT. When the DOJ requested more time in a two-page filing, Xinis delayed the submission deadline by two hours but kept the hearing time, reminding the department that the “act of sending Garcia to El Salvador was wholly illegal from the moment it happened,” said the NYT. During the hearing, the DOJ couldn’t answer various questions by Xinis regarding what steps they have taken to bring Garcia back to the U.S. and where his current location is. Instead, the NYT reports that DOJ attorney Drew Ensign suggested they could provide the information in a filing on Tuesday, April 15, with Xinis replying, “We’re not going to slow walk this.”
So what does this mean for the future? In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the order that Garcia be returned to the United States. However, the Trump administration still sees the order to clarify wording and not reach for the powers of the executive branch as a win. For example, NPR reports that the Assistant Security for Public Affairs of the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said, “The District Court was overbearing and, as SCOTUS said, should clarify its directive with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” Additionally, it is important to note that the case is still ongoing, leaving many questions, such as how and when Garcia gets back, unclear.