Despite Legal Protection, U.S. Deported Father to a Foreign Prison. A Judge Called It ‘Wholly Lawless.’
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was sent to a Salvadoran prison infamous for torture and gang violence. The administration concedes it erred — but publicly maintains unfounded claims that put him at risk.
Curated by Engage for Democracy
Updated April 14, 2025
🔎 Executive Summary
In violation of binding legal protections, the U.S. government forcibly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia — a legally protected Maryland father — to a Salvadoran prison infamous for torture and gang violence. A federal judge condemned the action as “wholly lawless” and ordered his immediate return. Shockingly, the administration admitted fault in court but continues to assert unfounded gang affiliations that place Garcia’s life at serious risk.
📬 Take Action Now: Use this letter to reach out to the Office of the President and ask that he facilitate Kilmar’s return during his meeting with Salvadoran President Bukele on Monday, April 14, 2025.
📝 The U.S. Government’s Lawless Deportation — and What It Reveals
Despite a court order explicitly protecting Kilmar Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador due to credible threats against his life, the U.S. government wrongfully detained and deported him to CECOT — a Salvadoran supermax prison notorious for human rights abuses. Judge Paula Xinis ruled the deportation was “wholly lawless,” citing no legal authority for the arrest, detention, or deportation, and noting that placing him in a prison with his documented persecutors “shocks the conscience.”
As Judge Xinis wrote in her April 6 ruling, the Defendants — senior officials in the Trump administration, including the DHS Secretary, Attorney General, and ICE leadership — violated U.S. immigration law and the Constitution in their handling of Abrego Garcia’s case.
“It is undisputed that Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador despite a grant of withholding of removal to that country. Even more disturbing, the Defendants the Defendants (senior officials in the Trump administration, including the DHS Secretary and Attorney General)...” concede that it cannot even produce the documents which reflect any authority, lawful or otherwise, to transfer him to El Salvador.”
“Thus, the record plainly reflects that Defendants’ forced migration to El Salvador violates Section 1231(b)(3)(A) (U.S. immigration law). He is guaranteed success on the merits of Count I.”
(Count I addresses the government’s violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act—a point the administration itself conceded in court.)
The Court also issued a stern warning about what the administration’s argument would mean if accepted:
“The Defendants... cling to the stunning proposition that they can forcibly remove any person—migrant and U.S. citizen alike—to prisons outside the United States, and then baldly assert they have no way to effectuate return because they are no longer the ‘custodian,’ and the Court thus lacks jurisdiction. As a practical matter, the facts say otherwise.”
The ruling goes further, sharply rebuking the administration’s conduct:
“Defendants effectuated [Abrego Garcia’s] detention in one of the most notoriously inhumane and dangerous prisons in the world. Defendants even embrace that reality as part of [a] well-orchestrated mission to use CECOT as a form of punishment and deterrence... But particular to Abrego Garcia, the risk of harm shocks the conscience.”
“Defendants have forcibly put him in a facility that intentionally mixes rival gang members without any regard for protecting the detainees from ‘harm at the hands of the gangs.’ Even worse, Defendants have claimed—without any evidence—that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 and then housed him among the chief rival gang, Barrio 18. Not to mention that Barrio 18 is the very gang whose years’ long persecution of Abrego Garcia resulted in his withholding from removal to El Salvador.”
Adding to the alarm, when asked directly why the U.S. government could not return Abrego Garcia, DOJ attorney Erez Reuveni stated:
“I’ve not received, to date, an answer that I find satisfactory.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi subsequently placed Reuveni on leave. Judge Xinis rejected the administration’s claim that the government lacks authority over its detainees once transferred abroad, asserting that the U.S. outsourced detention responsibility but retains jurisdiction — and the responsibility — to correct its error.
🏛️ The Administration Appeals to the Supreme Court
In a stunning escalation, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to block Judge Paula Xinis’s order requiring the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the United States (NYT, 2025). The emergency request, filed April 7 by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argues that the court's directive constitutes “district-court diplomacy” and intrudes on the executive branch’s authority over foreign relations.
“If this precedent stands,” the government warned, “district courts would effectively have extraterritorial jurisdiction over the United States’ diplomatic relations with the whole world.”
While conceding in court that Garcia’s removal was an “administrative error,” the administration maintains that courts have no power to compel his return. They continue to assert — without evidence — that Garcia is a member of MS-13, citing a confidential informant’s uncorroborated claim and his clothing style. Judge Xinis called this “a singular unsubstantiated allegation,” adding:
“The ‘evidence’ against Abrego Garcia consisted of nothing more than his Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie.”
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously rejected the administration’s earlier effort to pause the ruling. In a strongly worded rebuke, the court likened Garcia’s removal to “official kidnapping” and condemned the government’s assertion that courts are powerless to intervene:
“The United States 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... The government’s contention otherwise... [is] unconscionable.”
This latest development raises even graver concerns about executive overreach, defiance of judicial authority, and the politicization of legal process.
⚠️ Why This Should Concern Every American
When the U.S. government claims it can send a legally protected resident to a foreign prison — with no hearing, no warning, and no obligation to return him — it raises a chilling question: What protections are left for anyone? But more than that, this case forces us to reckon with what kind of nation we are becoming.
Judge Xinis’s ruling is not just a legal rebuke — it is a moral one. What was done to Abrego Garcia was unconscionable. If we do not stand up when injustice is this blatant, we risk normalizing it. And once normalized, it spreads.
This isn’t just about immigration. It’s about whether the rule of law means anything. It’s about whether human dignity still guides U.S. policy. And yes — it’s about who we are.
📌 Constitutional Concern:
Due Process (5th Amendment): Garcia was deported without notice, legal authority, or hearing — a direct violation of his constitutionally protected right to due process.
Judicial Authority (Article III): The administration’s argument that the Court lacks jurisdiction once a person is removed abroad undermines the judiciary’s constitutional role.
📌 Rule of Law Concern:
Violation of U.S. immigration law (INA § 1231(b)(3)(A)): The administration deported Garcia to a country from which he had been legally protected since 2019 — a move Judge Xinis called “wholly lawless.”
“It is undisputed that Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador despite a grant of withholding of removal to that country… [T]he Defendants concede that it cannot even produce the documents which reflect any authority, lawful or otherwise, to transfer him to El Salvador.” — Memorandum Opinion, p. 4
Agency Accountability: DHS admitted it had no legal basis, no warrant, and no removal order — and yet proceeded with detention and deportation anyway.
“The officers had no warrant for his arrest and no lawful basis to take him into custody; they told him only that his ‘status had changed.’” — p. 5
“Defendants have not produced any order of removal… or submitted any proof that they had removed him pursuant to one.” — p. 14
“The plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.” — p. 3 (Hr’g Tr. Apr. 4, 2025)
📌 Democratic Norms Concerns:
Unchecked Executive Power: The government’s claim that it can detain and deport both noncitizens and citizens to foreign prisons with no obligation to bring them back is a chilling assertion of authoritarian-style power.
Disinformation and Public Manipulation: Despite conceding its legal error in court, the administration continues to perpetuate baseless gang affiliations in public statements — endangering Garcia and undermining informed public discourse.
⚖️📌 April 7 Judicial Update: Two Court Rulings, One Critical Moment
On April 7, two major federal court decisions determined Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s immediate fate — and laid bare the constitutional stakes for us all.
🧑⚖️ Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: “Unconscionable” and Lawless
In a sweeping and unanimous ruling, the Fourth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s request to pause Judge Xinis’s order requiring Garcia’s return. The court forcefully rejected the administration’s claims that it could deport a legally present man with no hearing and no legal basis.
“The United States 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.”
Key findings:
The administration had no valid removal order authorizing Garcia’s deportation.
The deportation violated U.S. immigration law, constitutional due process, and an existing court order.
The court warned that accepting the government’s logic would create a “path of perfect lawlessness.”
⚖️ Supreme Court: Temporary Administrative Stay
Later that same day, Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administrative stay — temporarily pausing the lower court’s order while the full Supreme Court considers whether to intervene.
This means that Garcia remains imprisoned in El Salvador despite federal courts affirming that his removal was unlawful. The case is still active, and the Court has not ruled on the merits.
The administration continues to claim — without evidence — that Garcia is a member of MS-13, despite judicial findings that he has no criminal record and was granted deportation protection in 2019 because of documented threats against his life.
🛑 April 7 PM Update: After two federal courts ruled that Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation was unlawful, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay — delaying his return and keeping him imprisoned in El Salvador. The case is still active, and the Court has not made a final ruling.
🛑 April 12-13 Update: Confirmed in Custody, But Still Not Returned: The Fight to Uphold Due Process and Judicial Authority. Two major developments over the weekend further escalated the Abrego Garcia case, revealing both progress and deepening conflict between the judiciary and the executive branch.
Garcia’s Location Confirmed (NPR, April 12):
In a court filing late Saturday, the Trump administration finally confirmed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia is alive and detained at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). The statement, submitted by senior State Department official Michael G. Kozak, cited confirmation from the U.S. embassy in San Salvador.
Kozak wrote, “He is alive and secure in that facility. He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador.”The update came in response to a new court order by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, issued after the Supreme Court upheld her directive requiring the administration to “take all available steps” to secure Garcia’s return. Judge Xinis also ordered daily updates on Garcia’s location, the steps taken to bring him back, and what additional actions are planned.
While acknowledging Garcia’s location is a necessary first step, his legal team responded with alarm:
“The continued delay in executing a Supreme Court mandate is not only unacceptable—it is a direct affront to the rule of law.” – Murray Osorio PLLC
DOJ Pushes Back on Court Authority (NYT, April 13):
The very next day, the Department of Justice doubled down on its assertion that federal courts have no authority to dictate how the president conducts foreign affairs, even in cases of unlawful deportation. In a new legal filing, the DOJ argued:
“The federal courts have no authority to direct the executive branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way... That is the ‘exclusive power of the president as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.’”
This position comes despite the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling, which affirmed Judge Xinis’s authority and instructed the administration to facilitate Garcia’s release. However, administration lawyers are now seizing on the ruling’s ambiguous language—specifically the lack of direction on how to “effectuate” his return—to justify continued inaction.
Attorneys for Garcia have requested that the court explicitly order the administration to send a plane and federal officials to escort Garcia safely home. A follow-up hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, April 15, where Judge Xinis is expected to evaluate the administration’s defiance and determine further legal remedies.
This standoff raises serious questions about the limits of judicial authority, executive power, and the enforceability of constitutional rights—especially for noncitizens protected by court orders.
🚨 Why This Matters — and Why You Should Speak Out
Two courts have affirmed that Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation was illegal, unconstitutional, and immoral. The Supreme Court’s temporary stay does not erase those findings — it only delays action.
But this case now tests the limits of executive power — and the strength of our constitutional system.
If the government can admit its own wrongdoing… and still refuse to comply with a court order… what protections are left?
This case affects:
Judicial authority under Article III
Constitutional due process under the 5th Amendment
The precedent for outsourcing detention to foreign governments
The ability of Congress and the public to hold executive power accountable
✊ What You Can Do
📣 Raise awareness. Share this story widely to help others understand what’s at stake — not just for one man, but for the Constitution, the courts, and the limits of executive power. The more people know, the harder it is to look away.
👉Contact your Senators and Representative—all at once, in one easy step: Send your message now to your representatives via Engage for Democracy
👉 Urge the President to Act on Behalf of Kilmar Abrego Garcia during today’s meeting. Send your message to the President now via Engage for Democracy »
On Monday, April 14, President Trump is scheduled to meet with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele. This meeting presents a critical opportunity to address the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador and is currently detained there.
📱 Text your message in under 30 seconds.
Use Resistbot:
Text RESIST to 50409
Follow the prompts (it will ask for your name and ZIP)
Paste this message:
“I’m urging you to speak out and demand the safe return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Two courts ruled his deportation was unlawful — yet he remains imprisoned abroad. This is a constitutional crisis. Please stand for due process, judicial authority, and the rule of law.”
📌 Sources:
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Civil Action No. 8:25-cv-00951-PX, Memorandum Opinion by Judge Paula Xinis, April 6, 2025. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.31.0.pdf
Reuters, April 6, 2025 – "U.S. sidelines DOJ lawyer involved in deportation case, which judge calls 'wholly lawless'". https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sidelines-doj-lawyer-after-judge-orders-return-man-deported-erroneously-2025-04-06/
Wall Street Journal, April 7, 2025 – "Behind the Legal Battle of the Man Sent to Salvadoran Prison in Error". https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/behind-the-legal-battle-of-the-man-sent-to-salvadoran-prison-in-error-ff653292
Politico, April 6, 2025 – "Judge reaffirms order to return Maryland man erroneously deported to El Salvador". https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/06/judge-order-return-man-el-salvador-00274526
Snopes, April 4, 2025 – "Vance was wrong: Maryland father accidentally deported to El Salvador isn't 'convicted MS-13 gang member'". https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/deported-maryland-father-vance/
NYT, April 6, 2025. Trump Asks Supreme Court to Block Order Requiring Return of Wrongly Deported Migrant. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/us/politics/supreme-court-wrongly-deported.html