Auberon Waugh

Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Part of deportations in the second presidency of Donald Trump
Kilmar Abrego Garcia in 2025
Date	March 15–16, 2025 (2025-03-15 – 2025-03-16)
Perpetrator	Governments of the United States and El Salvador
Arrests	Kilmar Abrego Garcia
Charges	None

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia^[a][b] is a citizen of El Salvador who was illegally^[8] deported from the United States on March 15, 2025, in what the Trump administration called "an administrative error".^[9] He was imprisoned without trial in the Salvadoran maximum security Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), despite never having been charged with nor convicted of a crime in either country,^[10][11] under the countries' agreement^[12] to imprison U.S. deportees there for payment.^[13] The administration has defended the deportation by accusing him of being a member of MS-13, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, an accusation based on a bail determination made during a 2019 immigration court proceeding, which Abrego Garcia contested.^[14]

Abrego Garcia grew up in El Salvador and then immigrated illegally to the United States in 2011 at the age of 16 to escape gang threats. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal status due to the danger he faced from gang violence if he returned to El Salvador. This status allowed him to live and work legally in the United States. At the time of his deportation in 2025, he lived in Maryland along with his wife and children, all American citizens, and was complying with annual check-ins with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).^[15]

On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously^[c] ruled that Abrego Garcia's removal to El Salvador was illegal.^[18] The Court rejected the administration's defense, which claimed it lacked the legal authority to exercise jurisdiction over El Salvador and secure his return. Justice Sotomayor noted that this argument implied the government "could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene."

The Supreme Court required the U.S. to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's release but stopped short of a lower court's directive to both "facilitate and effectuate" his return, instead directing the lower court to clarify what it meant by "effectuate."^[19] The administration interpreted "facilitate" to mean it is not obligated to arrange his release and return,^[20] and can meet its obligation by admitting him into the U.S.^[20] and providing a plane^[21] if El Salvador chooses to release him, which President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador refuses to do. Bukele stated in an Oval Office meeting that he would not "smuggle a terrorist into the United States".^[22]

U.S. senator Chris Van Hollen met with Abrego Garcia in El Salvador on April 18, 2025. Abrego Garcia said he had been transferred from CECOT to another prison in El Salvador, and he is being held in isolation.^[23]

Abrego Garcia was born in the Los Nogales neighborhood of San Salvador, El Salvador, in July 1995.^[2][24] In El Salvador, the Barrio 18 criminal gang tried to extort his mother's pupusa business for money and threatened that if she did not pay the money, they would force her eldest son, Cesar, to join the gang; the gang later threatened to kill him.^[2][25] As a result, the family paid the money and hid Cesar, eventually sending him to the United States.^[2][26] Barrio 18 then turned its attention to Kilmar, who was around 12 years old. The gang followed Kilmar and continued to threaten his family.^[2] Eventually, when Kilmar was 16 years old,^[26][27] his family sent him to the U.S. as well.^[2] According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Abrego Garcia illegally crossed the Mexico–U.S. border near McAllen, Texas, in March 2012.^[24]

From the U.S. border, Abrego Garcia traveled to Maryland in order to live with his brother Cesar, who became a U.S. citizen.^[24] In 2016, Abrego Garcia met Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen who would become his wife.^[2] After marrying, the couple had one child, whom they raised alongside Vasquez Sura's two children from an earlier relationship.^[2][28] All three children have special needs;^[28][24] the son born to the couple has autism, a hearing defect, and is "unable to communicate verbally".^[26] Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland with his family,^[26][4] and was not formally convicted of any criminal offense, including gang membership, in the U.S. or in El Salvador.^[29]

In March 2019, Abrego Garcia and three other men were arrested by police in Hyattsville, Maryland, in the parking lot of a Home Depot store in which they were seeking work as day laborers.^[2][24][26] The Prince George's County Police Department (PGPD) said multiple detectives interviewed Abrego Garcia and the other men arrested that day.^[24] Abrego Garcia was accused of being a member of the MS-13 criminal gang, which began in immigrant communities in Los Angeles and has ties to several Central and South American countries,^[2] and is a rival of Barrio 18.^[29] The PGPD detectives said they "had reasonable suspicion, based upon their training and experience" that Abrego Garcia and two others "displayed traits associated with MS-13 gang culture", for which police cited tattoos, clothing, and "information from a source".^[24] Abrego Garcia denied any connection to MS-13.^[30]

One of the detectives, Ivan Mendez, was suspended from the PGPD in April 2019 for "misconduct in office" unrelated to the incident with Abrego Garcia. Mendez was terminated in December 2022, after pleading guilty to misconduct and accepting the department's proposal of his termination.^[24]

The PGPD gave custody of Abrego Garcia to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to initiate deportation proceedings.^[29] ICE agents took him into custody,^[2] and the PGPD later said that they had no future interactions with Abrego Garcia.^[24] In his legal proceedings, the U.S. government stated Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 because "he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of the presidents" when arrested, and alleged that such clothes are "indicative of the Hispanic gang culture".^[29] MS-13 had previously adopted the Chicago Bulls logo as a gang symbol.^[29] Officials also said they spoke to a "past and proven reliable confidential source" who "advised" them that Abrego Garcia was an active gang member with the moniker "Chele".^[24] The government said the informant alleged that Abrego Garcia was active with MS-13's "western clique", which, according to his immigration lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, is based in New York,^[2][29] where Abrego Garcia has never lived.^[21] Sandoval-Moshenberg cited the DOJ and the Suffolk County district attorney’s office regarding the western clique's location.^[31] In contrast, Mia Cathell of the Washington Examiner cited a 2011 DOJ indictment that said MS-13 had branches in DC:

"MS-13 was organized in the District of Columbia and elsewhere in 'cliques,' that is, smaller groups operating in a specific city or region ... In the District of Columbia and surrounding metropolitan jurisdictions, these cliques included Sailors (SLSW), Normandy (NLS), Peajes, Western (WLS), Uniones (ULS), and Fultons."^[31]

The informant also claimed Abrego Garcia held the MS-13 rank of chequeo; according to MS-13 author Steven Dudley, chequeo is not a rank within MS-13 but refers to yet-to-be-initiated recruits.^[29]

Abrego Garcia requested a bond hearing, which the American Bar Association describes as "typically informal affairs, not substitutes for trial or even for discovery. Often the opposing parties simply describe to the judicial officer the nature of their evidence; they do not actually produce it."^[32] There the judge determined the informant's claim^[33] was sufficient evidence in support of his gang membership to deny Abrego Garcia's request for bond.^[27][29] and to hold him pending a full review.^[34] On appeal, a second judge upheld that ruling, finding that the claim was not clearly wrong.^[27] As a bond hearing's decision this was not a determination he was a gang member, but instead limited to whether to release him from custody.^[35]

Vasquez Sura said the government had "absolutely no evidence" and "Kilmar is not and has never been a gang member".^[2] Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime,^[36] and The Washington Post reported that no court ever made a "full adjudication" of whether he was indeed a gang member.^[27]

In Abrego Garcia's hearing, neither the PGPD officers nor the confidential informant were cross-examined.^[25] Standards of evidence in U.S. immigration hearings are lower than in trials: the government's claims are assumed to be true, while the burden of proof rests with the defendant.^[37] Additionally, "Record of Deportable/Inadmissible Alien" forms—which consist largely of hearsay and are thus inadmissible in other proceedings—are admissible in immigration courts^[38] and are considered "inherently trustworthy".^[39][40]

While awaiting the resolution of his deportation proceedings, Abrego Garcia married Vasquez Sura in June 2019.^[2][28] The couple married while Abrego Garcia was still detained, with the two separated by glass and an officer giving them both their wedding rings.^[2] He applied for asylum after his request for bail was refused in order to prevent his deportation to El Salvador,^[29] saying he feared returning due to threats of persecution and torture.^[2] A judge denied his request for asylum, because asylum applications must be submitted within one year of one's arrival in the United States.^[2][25]

However, Abrego Garcia also applied for "withholding of removal" status.^[41] This request was granted by immigration judge David M. Jones, who issued a removal order but barred deportation to El Salvador, saying he faced a "clear probability of future persecution" in the country, and he "demonstrated that [El Salvador's]^[d] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him."^[18][26] The judge wrote that Abrego Garcia provided "substantial documentation" in favor of his claims and that his testimony was "internally consistent, externally consistent", and "appeared free of embellishment".^[25]

Withholding of removal is "similar to asylum" but requires a higher burden of proof, and does not preclude potential deportation to a third country not covered by the status.^[44] Those granted withholding of removal are allowed to live and work lawfully in the U.S. indefinitely.^[45] The immigration judge enters a deportation order, then tells the government they cannot execute that order, hence withholding removal.^[46] Immigrants are ineligible for withholding of removal if they have been convicted of aggravated felonies, are suspected to have committed a serious crime prior to their arrival in the U.S., or are judged to present a security risk to the U.S.^[47] Unlike asylum, recipients cannot become eligible for a green card and permanent residency^[44][45] to gain a path to citizenship.^[46]

ICE did not appeal the judge's ruling, and released Abrego Garcia from custody.^[25][41] The U.S. Department of Homeland Security granted him a work permit,^[48] and he lived and worked legally in Maryland.^[49][50] He was required to check in with ICE annually, with which he complied.^[2][26] Later in 2019, Vasquez Sura gave birth to their child, a U.S. citizen.^[2][28] Abrego Garcia continued working to support his family. He became a sheet metal apprentice in September 2024, and was pursuing his journeyman's license at the time of his deportation.^[2][41]

Abrego Garcia faced additional allegations of criminal activity, none of which resulted in any charges being filed or any conviction being obtained.^[29] In 2021, Vasquez Sura sought a protective order against him, alleging that he had physically attacked her on multiple occasions.^[29] The application was dismissed because Vasquez Sura did not appear for the hearing.^[24] She said that they "were able to work through this situation privately as a family"^[29] and that she had "acted out of caution after a disagreement" and sought an order "in case things escalated", which they did not.^[24] Later in 2025, she described Abrego Garcia as "a loving partner and father".^[29]

In 2022, at a traffic stop on Interstate 40 in Tennessee, Abrego Garcia and eight others were stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol for speeding and veering out of his lane.^[24][29] Abrego Garcia said they were traveling to work a construction job.^[24] There was no luggage in the vehicle, which indicated to the officer that it could be a case of human trafficking.^[29] The Highway Patrol processed his driver's license and found that it was expired and contained a note to inform federal officers due to alleged affiliation with MS-13. The agency contacted ICE, which declined to take Abrego Garcia into custody, and no charges were filed against him.^[24]

During his 2024 campaign for president of the United States, Donald Trump pledged that if elected, he would enact the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history against both authorized and unauthorized immigrants in the United States^[51][52][53] and that he would deport over 10 million people through sweeping immigration raids.^[54][55] After Trump's inauguration, he began an immigration crackdown.^[56] By April 2025, attempted border crossings into the U.S. dropped dramatically, with arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) doubling and the number of people in immigration detention reaching an all-time high.^[51] To facilitate mass arrests, the Trump administration removed a rule protecting migrants from arrest in sensitive places such as schools, churches, hospitals and courtrooms^[57] and approved the removal of migrants temporarily admitted by the Biden administration.^[58]

In January 2025, Trump signed an executive order designating transnational gangs such as Tren de Aragua and MS-13 as foreign terrorist organizations.^[59] In February, Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele offered the U.S. the use of its Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a Salvadoran prison notorious for harsh conditions, to imprison criminal deportees of any nationality, including Americans.^[60][61] After diplomatic efforts by the Trump administration, El Salvador agreed to imprison deportees from the US at CECOT for US$6 million per year.^[62][63][60] As president of El Salvador, Bukele has been criticized for bypassing due process and imprisoning people without ties to gangs, after a 2022 declaration of a state of emergency empowered him to carry out mass arrests.^[61] During the Biden administration, the U.S. Treasury department had sanctioned two officials in Bukele's government while alleging that Bukele's administration had provided financial incentives to gang leaders to keep homicides low and to provide support in elections.^[64] In the second Trump administration, however, Bukele has positioned El Salvador as a key ally of the United States.^[60][61]

In March, the U.S. deported hundreds of Venezuelans and dozens of Salvadorans to be imprisoned in CECOT.^[65] It accused the Venezuelans of being members of Tren de Aragua and the Salvadorans of being members of MS-13.^[61] El Salvador's ambassador to the United States, Milena Mayorga, said that Bukele had specifically asked for MS-13 leaders to be included among those deported to El Salvador as "an issue of honor".^[60] However, most deportees had no criminal history and were detained based on evidence such as tattoos and clothing that the Trump administration said were proof of gang ties.^[65][66][67]

Trump justified the deportations by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which gives the president wartime authority to summarily arrest and deport citizens of a nation at war with or invading the U.S.^[68][69]—and declaring that Tren de Aragua was perpetrating an invasion of the United States.^[70] The deportees arrived in El Salvador after the judge in J.G.G. v. Trump had issued a temporary restraining order that paused deportations under the act and ordered any such flights stopped or turned around.^[71][72][73] In response, Bukele wrote on social media: "Oopsie... Too late 😂."^[74][75] According to the Salvadoran government, they do not plan to ever release any prisoner from CECOT.^[76]

Prisoners are held in large concrete cells that the Associated Press reports can house 65 to 70 individuals, but in videos lack enough bunks for everyone.^[77] The BBC reports that with access severely restricted and journalists only allowed on choreographed tours, the number of inmates per cell is not clear, that some rights groups put it at 80 while others say it can go above 150, and that when asked, the prison's director responded "where you can fit 10 people, you can fit 20."^[78] The cells are furnished with four-story bunks of bare metal without mattresses or sheets, two toilets, two sinks^[79] (reported by CNN as a cement basin and plastic bucket for washing, and a jug of drinking water)^[80] and two Bibles.^[81] The cells are artificially lit 24 hours a day^[81] and the temperature can reach 35 °C (95 °F) in daytime.^[79] Prisoners are allowed to leave their cells for 30 minutes a day for group exercise in the hallway.^[78][79] There are no visits, letters,^[82] workshops, or prison educational programs, and prisoners are not allowed outside.^[77] Food is served without utensils, to keep them from being fashioned into weapons.^[79] Occasionally, prisoners who have gained a level of trust give motivational talks^[77] (reported by CNN as Bible readings, as programming for the hallway half-hour.)^[82]

CNN reported two sources told it the deportees' situation is less regimented, but with the same facilities. The prison director said of the deportees, "there are no privileges."^[80]

El Salvador's Minister of Justice has said those held at CECOT would never return to their communities,^[77] and the BBC in 2024 cited Miguel Sarre, formerly of the United Nations Subcommittee for the Prevention of Torture, as warning that CECOT appeared to be used "to dispose of people without formally applying the death penalty," referring to the fact that no-one had so far been released from the jail. Cristosal [es], which the BBC described as El Salvador's primary human rights organization, has documented torture and more than 150 deaths in custody in the country during the ongoing State of Exception. Amnesty International has accused Salvadoran authorities of "a systematic policy of torture towards all those detained under the state of emergency on suspicion of being gang members," leading to deaths in custody, and of other prisoners dying due to inhumane conditions and denial of medical care and medicine.^[79]

A due process clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments "without due process of law."^[83] In the context of U.S. immigration and nationality law, this is limited to procedural due process, as the substance of such law is generally immune to judicial review.^[84][85][86] Removal pursuant to such law is an administrative matter, so the "provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application".^[87][88] Procedural due process requires government officials at least give a person proper notice and an opportunity to be heard before depriving that person of their life, liberty, or property.^{[89][90]: 657}

On March 12, 2025, after working at his job as a union apprentice, Abrego Garcia picked his son up from his grandmother's house.^[26] After leaving the house, an agent of DHS stopped his car.^[2] He told him that his immigration "status had changed", waited until his wife arrived to take custody of their son, and then arrested Abrego Garcia.^[26] Abrego Garcia's wife said that ICE called her after detaining her husband and told her "she had ten minutes to pick up her son before he was turned over to child protective services."^[91] Detained in Baltimore, Abrego Garcia told his wife that he was repeatedly questioned about whether he was connected to MS-13, and that agents had referenced a restaurant that his family often went to as well as a photo of him playing basketball.^[2] In the following days, ICE transferred Abrego Garcia to a detention facility in Texas.^[26]

Abrego Garcia called Vasquez Sura on March 15 from Texas, telling his wife that he was being deported to CECOT.^[92]

On March 15, the Trump administration sent "three planeloads" of Salvadoran and Venezuelan deportees, including Abrego Garcia, to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador, alleging that they were members of criminal organizations.^[26] A Bloomberg investigation found that approximately 90% of them had no U.S. criminal record other than traffic or immigration violations.^[93]

Robert Cerna, an ICE official stated in a sworn filing that "Abrego Garcia's protected status had not appeared on the flight manifest for the deportations" and that as a result he was listed as an "alternate" and took the place of other detainees that were removed. Under his sworn testimony "Cerna referred to Abrego Garcia's 'purported membership in MS-13', but he did not describe him as a confirmed gang member, gang leader, or terrorist."^[94]

Since being transported to the Terrorism Confinement Center, Abrego Garcia's family has had no contact with him.^[26] U.S. courts have neither convicted nor charged him of any crimes.^[95][10]

Abrego Garcia v. Noem
Court	United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Started	March 24, 2025
Docket nos.	8:25-cv-00951
Court membership
Judge sitting	Paula Xinis

Abrego Garcia's wife sued the United States on March 24, 2025,^[96] with herself, Abrego Garcia, and their son as plaintiffs. Their attorneys sought court intervention to compel the U.S. federal government to facilitate returning Abrego Garcia to the United States.^[26] The U.S. government later acknowledged to the court that the government had been aware of the immigration judge's order preventing his removal to El Salvador, stating in a court filing that "[a]lthough ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of an administrative error."^[26][7] This admission marked the first acknowledgment of a mistake related to the deportation of hundreds of people on March 15.^[26]

The Atlantic reports that, soon after discovering the mistaken deportation, officials from the Departments of "State, Justice, and Homeland Security" worked to find a way to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States. Officials "went so far as to float the idea of having the U.S. ambassador to El Salvador make a personal appeal to the country's president for Abrego Garcia's return". However White House officials reportedly took over the case and became more "strident" in their public comments. They reportedly began to see the case as more than about Abrego Garcia and instead as "a measure of whether Donald Trump's administration can send people—citizens or not—to foreign prisons without due process". The White House denied this reporting through Leavitt stating, "The Administration has always maintained the position that Abrego Garcia was the man we rightfully intended to deport because he is an illegal immigrant and MS-13 gang member."^[94]

In court, despite acknowledging the error, the Trump administration has argued in court that the court lacks personal jurisdiction to order the return of Abrego Garcia, as he is no longer in U.S. custody.^[26]

Abrego Garcia's lawyer, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, stated that the U.S. government was claiming "that the court is powerless to order any relief ... If that's true, the immigration laws are meaningless—all of them—because the government can deport whoever they want, wherever they want, whenever they want, and no court can do anything about it once it's done."^[26] Abrego Garcia's lawyer has requested that if necessary, the court order the Trump administration to withhold the money it pays to El Salvador to imprison men at CECOT.^[26]

On April 4, 2025, Judge Paula Xinis ruled that his deportation to El Salvador, without any kind of judicial documentation warranting it, was illegal and that he would be irreparably harmed if he remained in El Salvador, and she ordered the government to ensure his return to the U.S. no later than April 7.^[97] She described CECOT as "one of the most notoriously inhumane and dangerous prisons in the world" that "by design, deprives its detainees of adequate food, water, and shelter, fosters routine violence" and places Abrego Garcia with his persecutors.^[98] She cited conditions there in her opinion as a reason why leaving Abrego Garcia in prison while the lawsuit proceeded would constitute irreparable harm.

The following day, Judge Xinis issued a 22-page opinion reaffirming her previous ruling. The opinion stated the deportation "shocks the conscience" and was "wholly lawless".^[98] She also said that while there were previous assertions of Abrego Garcia's membership in MS-13, the government has not presented evidence he was a member and had essentially abandoned that argument in her court.^[98] The judge noted that by publicly labeling him a member of MS-13, the government had placed Abrego Garcia at risk in the detention facility because El Salvador "intentionally mixes rival gang members" in the facility.^[98] Xinis stated in her opinion: "Defendants seized Abrego Garcia without any lawful authority; held him in three separate domestic detention centers without legal basis; failed to present him to any immigration judge or officer; and forcibly transported him to El Salvador in direct contravention of [immigration law]."^[98] The opinion also discussed Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem's visit to CECOT where she described the prison as "one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use."

In response to the government's argument that the court did not have jurisdiction over the matter since Abrego Garcia was no longer in the United States, the judge stated: "Surely, Defendants do not mean to suggest that they have wholesale erased the substantive and procedural protections of [federal immigration law] in one fell swoop by dropping those individuals in CECOT without recourse."^[98] The judge argued that, like any other "contract facility" that the government pays for detention, the government had the power to secure and transport detainees, including Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador.^{[98][99][100]}

In the April 4 hearing before Judge Xinis, Justice Department lawyer Erez Reuveni stated the justice department had failed to give him the necessary information to respond to the Judge's inquiries. Reuveni admitted the deportation was a mistake, saying "the facts are conceded, plaintiff Abrego Garcia should not have been removed," and when questioned on why the government was not able to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S., Reuveni stated that he had asked the same question to government officials and had not received an answer.^[101]

The following day, the Department of Justice (DOJ) placed Reuveni on administrative leave along with his supervisor August "Auggie" Flentje.^[10][102] Reuveni had previously been promoted to acting deputy director of the DOJ Office of Immigration Litigation on March 21.^[102] Attorney General Pam Bondi commented in a statement: "At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States. Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences."^[102] Bondi further clarified later stating: "He did not argue ... He shouldn't have taken the case. He shouldn't have argued it, if that's what he was going to do ... You have to vigorously argue on behalf of your client."^[98] Politico noted that despite Bondi's assertions, Reuveni "did argue that Xinis had no jurisdiction to consider the case."^[98] The DOJ fired Reuveni on April 15, saying that he had sabotaged the Abrego case.^[103]

Abrego Garcia v. Noem
Court	4th Cir.
Full case name	Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia et al. v. Kristi Noem et al.
Decided	April 7, 2025
Docket nos.	25-1345
Case history
Appealed from	D. Md.
Court membership
Judges sitting	Robert King, Stephanie Thacker, Harvie Wilkinson III

On April 5, the Department of Justice appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.^[101] On April 7, an appeals court panel of the Fourth Circuit consisting of judges Stephanie Thacker, Harvie Wilkinson III, and Robert King unanimously denied the Trump administration's appeal of Xinis's order.^[104] The appellate court stated that: "[The 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, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable."^[104]

Noem v. Abrego Garcia
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 10, 2025
Full case name	Kristi Noem, Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al.
Docket no.	24A949
Citations	604 U.S. (more)
Holding
The District Court "properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego 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"
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinion
Majority	Unsigned
Statement	Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson

On April 7, the Trump administration appealed the Fourth Circuit's ruling via the Supreme Court's emergency docket. The same day, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a short order temporarily staying Xinis's order, allowing the Trump administration to continue keeping Abrego Garcia in the foreign prison pending immediate further review from the entire Supreme Court.^[105][1] In his Supreme Court filing after the stay was issued, Abrego Garcia's lawyer argued for his release: "[Abrego Garcia] has never been charged with a crime, in any country. He is not wanted by the government of El Salvador. He sits in a foreign prison solely at the behest of the United States, as the product of a Kafka-esque mistake."^[10]

On April 10, the Supreme Court released a unanimous^[c] unsigned order.^[106] In reciting the facts of the case the court stated: "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal."^[107] After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the District Court "properly requires the Government to 'facilitate' Abrego 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."^[108]

Justice Sotomayor wrote a statement joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson,^[109] stating in part:

The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong.^[110] ... The Government's argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. That view refutes itself.^[111]

The Supreme Court did not rule that the federal government shall bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States immediately.^[19][108] Judge Xinis had ordered the government to "facilitate and effectuate" his return, but the Court only granted the "facilitate" part, calling "effectuate" unclear and possibly beyond her authority. The Court remanded the case to the district court, telling it to clarify the issue "with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs," while the government "should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."^{[19][108][112]}

Both sides claimed victory, with one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers stating "The rule of law won today. Time to bring him home," while a Justice Department spokesman spoke of the decision recognizing the "exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs" and that it "illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the president's authority to conduct foreign policy."^[19]

External videos
"Attorney for Kilmar Abrego Garcia Speaks to Reporters", April 11, 2025, C-SPAN

After the Supreme Court's April 10 ruling remanding certain issues back to the district court,^[19] Judge Xinis amended her earlier order that the Trump administration "facilitate and effectuate" Abrego Garcia's return, telling the Trump administration instead to "take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible" and to update her on the morning of April 11, providing information about the steps that the government has taken, where Abrego Garcia is currently located, and what additional steps it plans to take; she also scheduled a status update for that afternoon.^[113]

The government requested that she extend the deadline for submitting the update until the following week and postpone the status hearing, and Xinis quickly ordered that she would only give them an extra two hours for the update.^[114][115] The government's subsequent filing only said that it was "impractical" to update her at that time.^[116] During the status hearing, Xinis asked Drew Ensign, a deputy assistant attorney general, where Abrego Garcia was currently located, what the government had done so far to facilitate his return, and what its plans were, but he said that he did not know.^[116][3]

The hearing ended with Xinis ordering the Trump administration to provide "daily updates" answering her previous questions, from an official with "personal knowledge" of the situation.^[117][118]

The Trump administration filed their April 12 update ten minutes late, where State Department official Michael Kozak cited "official reporting from our Embassy in San Salvador" stating that Abrego Garcia is alive and "currently being held in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador ... He is detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador."^[119][120] However, in the memo detailing the transfer, El Salvador implied the United States retained decision-making power.^[121] The Trump administration's April 12 update did not answer Xinis' questions to provide information on past and future steps to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return.^[122]

The Trump administration, via ICE official Evan Katz, told the court on April 13 that it had "no updates" for Xinis' order of daily updates.^[20] While Katz acknowledged that Abrego Garcia "should not have been removed to El Salvador", Katz also wrote that Abrego Garcia "is no longer eligible for withholding of removal [to El Salvador] because of his membership in MS-13 which is now a designated foreign terrorist organization" (however, Xinis had previously ruled that there was no evidence that Abrego Garcia was part of a gang).^[123]

Separately, the Trump administration told the district court on April 13 that it interpreted the order to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return as an order to only "remove any domestic obstacles" in the U.S. against Abrego Garcia's return, so there was no requirement to try to obtain Abrego Garcia from El Salvador.^[124] The Trump administration further declared that the federal judiciary had "no authority to direct" the Trump administration "to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner".^[125]

The Trump administration additionally argued on April 13 against the need to provide more information about efforts to return Abrego Garcia, citing that "discovery could interfere with ongoing diplomatic discussions" with El Salvador.^[124] As for information on the Trump administration's deal with El Salvador to imprison deported immigrants, the Trump administration argued against revealing that information due to it being classified, potentially a state secret or under attorney-client privilege.^[20]

On April 14, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) lawyer Joseph Mazzara updated the court that his department "does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from the domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation."^[126] On April 16, Mazzara told the district court that there were "no further updates" regarding the situation.^[127]

After the Trump administration's continued inaction in facilitating Abrego Garcia's release and return to the United States, on April 15, Xinis approved a request from Abrego Garcia's lawyers for expedited discovery, ordering the government to turn over specific kinds of documents requested by the lawyers that are related to Abrego Garcia's deportation and their efforts to return him, and requiring written responses to a related set of 15 questions posed by the lawyers, known as interrogatories.^{[128][129][130]} She also ordered several government officials to sit for depositions, including Joseph Mazzara, the Department of Homeland Security's acting general counsel, and Robert Cerna, the acting field office director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.^[131] She said that she would review this evidence in assessing whether the government should be held in contempt of court, which Abrego Garcia's lawyers had requested.^[132][133]

Xinis ordered the government to produce the requested documents and respond to the interrogatories by April 21, and the next day, Abrego Garcia's lawyers stated that the government had produced "nothing of substance" and asked for hearing. The New York Times described the government's responses as part of "a pattern of stonewalling" in which it was coming "ever closer to an open showdown with the judicial branch in a way that could threaten the constitutional balance of power". Despite courts having ordered the federal authorities to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, DOJ lawyers said that the discovery requests were "based on the false premise that the United States can or has been ordered to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador". Xinis responded with another order, stating that the government was engaged in "a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations" and had "sought refuge behind vague and unsubstantiated assertions of privilege". She gave the government an additional day to respond to the discovery demands, and said that any assertions of priviledge must be accompanied by "specific legal and factual showings".^[134]

On April 24, both the government and Abrego Garcia's lawyers filed motions under seal, and with both parties' agreement, Xinis stayed the discovery deadline until April 30.^[135] When the government asked her to stay her discovery order a second time, she denied the request and set new deadlines for early May.^[136]

On April 16, the Trump administration returned to the Fourth Circuit, asking the court to stay Xinis's order for expedited discovery, calling it a "fishing expedition".^[137] The next day, judges King, Thacker, and Wilkinson unanimously denied the appeal. In a seven-page ruling, Judge Wilkinson said that Trump was evidently seeking the "weakening the courts" through his "constant intimations of its [the courts'] illegitimacy", and he warned that Trump was also harming himself by creating "a public perception of its [the presidency's] lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions".^[138] AP News described the order as an "extraordinary condemnation".^[139] The court called the government's request "both extraordinary and premature" and went on to say:

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.^[140]

The appeals court rejected the government's argument that all it must do to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return is to remove domestic obstacles,^[141] ruling Trump officials aren't allowed "to do essentially nothing."^[142] Judge Wilkinson stated that Abrego Garcia is entitled to due process regardless of whether he is a member of MS-13, and if the government is confident about its allegation that he is, it can initiate immigration court "proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order" once he is back in the U.S.^[143]

According to the administration, the Supreme Court's requirement to "facilitate" the release and return does not mean the government has to take any steps to get him back, other than let him in if El Salvador chooses to release him.^[20] Attorney General Pam Bondi stated in the April 14 Oval Office meeting with President Bukele, "If they want to return him, we would facilitate it, meaning provide a plane. That's up for El Salvador if they want to return him. That's not up to us."^[21]

In what Politico called sidestepping court orders, Trump has maintained that he is unable to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return, as he is in Bukele's custody. Politico noted this as unusual for Trump, who prides himself on strong-arming world leaders.^[144]

Trump had initially said "If the Supreme Court said bring somebody back I would do that. I respect the Supreme Court." Regarding Xinis' order, he said, "Well, I'm not talking about the lower court. I have great respect for the Supreme Court."^[145]

During an April 14 meeting between Presidents Trump and Bukele, Bukele told reporters it was "absurd" to ask if he would return Abrego Garcia.^[146] Bukele stated:

Are you suggesting I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? How can I return him to the United States, like I smuggle him into the United States? Of course, I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous. [...] We just turned the murder capital of the world into the safest country in the western hemisphere, and you want us to go back into releasing criminals, so we can go back to being the murder capital of the world? That's not going to happen.^[147]

Trump added that the reporters would "love to have a criminal released into our country. These are sick people".^[21] The administration also claims that an order from the Supreme Court to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release only compels the government to allow Abrego Garcia's entry into the United States if he is released by El Salvador, and that "The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner."^[20]

During the meeting, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that it was up to El Salvador, not the American government, whether Abrego Garcia would be released.^[148]

In an April 13 letter to Milena Mayorga, the Salvadoran ambassador to the U.S., Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland requested a meeting with Bukele during his visit to the United States the next day, to discuss Abrego Garcia's return.^[149] The meeting did not occur, and on April 16, Van Hollen traveled to El Salvador from the United States with the intention of visiting Abrego Garcia in prison to assess his health^[150] and to meet with representatives of the Salvadoran government in an effort to obtain his release.^[151][152]

At a press conference later that day, Van Hollen stated that he had met with El Salvador's vice president, Félix Ulloa, who told him that the senator had not given sufficient advance notice to arrange a visit with Abrego Garcia. When Van Hollen asked whether he could return the following week, or if either he or Abrego Garcia's wife could speak with him by phone, Ulloa suggested he direct those requests to the U.S. Embassy. Van Hollen said that he asked why Abrego Garcia was being held at CECOT even though he had not been convicted of any crimes in either the U.S. or El Salvador, and described Ulloa's response as "the Trump administration is paying El Salvador, the government of El Salvador to keep him at CECOT."^[153][154]

External videos
"Sen. Van Hollen on Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case and Attempts to See Him", April 18, 2025, C-SPAN

On April 17, El Salvadoran officials brought Abrego Garcia to meet Van Hollen at his hotel.^[155] According to Van Hollen, Abrego Garcia told him during that meeting that he had been moved from CECOT to another facility in Santa Ana, El Salvador 8 days before, and that his experience at CECOT "traumatized" him.^[155] The DOJ later said that this facility is the Centro Industrial Penitentiary.^[156] Abrego Garcia was also provided with non-prison clothes and a cap to cover his head, which had been shaved by the prison.^[157]

Concerning the meeting, Bukele tweeted, "Now that he's been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador's custody."^[158] Trump accused Van Hollen of grandstanding, saying the senator "looked like a fool".^[159]

Roger Stone accused Van Hollen of violating the Logan Act, "a 200-year-old law aimed at preventing people from undermining the government". However, Julian Ku, a law professor at Hofstra University, noted that accusations of violations of the Logan Act are a "useful way for people to accuse each other of undermining U.S. foreign policy" but is not a "meaningful law" that is "likely to ever be used", especially given that no one has ever been convicted under the law and the last prosecution happened in 1853.^[160]

On April 29, Van Hollen sent a letter to Trump, detailing his meeting with Ulloa. Van Hollen stated that Ulloa had said "We have a deal with the U.S. government. They send people. We host them. They pay. And that's it."^[161] Van Hollen added that if Trump can defy a court order and strip Abrego Garcia of his rights, the same could happen with anyone else.^[162]

Meanwhile, on April 16, Representative Delia Ramirez, a Democratic member of the House Homeland Security Committee, proposed a congressional member delegation to El Salvador. Representative Mark Green, the Republican committee chair, denied the request, replying the next day that the Democrats were welcome to "use their own personal credit cards" to visit the prison.^[163]

The week after Van Hollen's trip, four Democratic members of the House of Representatives – Yassamin Ansari (Arizona), Maxine Dexter (Oregon), Maxwell Frost (Florida) and Robert Garcia (California) – traveled to El Salvador, accompanied by Chris Newman, one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers. They were again hoping to meet with Abrego Garcia, and seeking his release and return to the U.S. Maxwell said that another purpose of the trip was to ensure that "our country is following our laws", a concern echoed by others. Ansari said that the case was not only about Abrego Garcia himself, but about "the future of our democracy" and due process. Newman also spoke of the need for Abrego Garcia to have access to counsel. The group's request to meet with Abrego Garcia was rejected.^[164]

Prior to the trip, Garcia and Frost had written James Comer, chair of the House Oversight Committee, asking that the trip be considered an official delegation, but the request was rejected.^[165] The Republicans on the committee tweeted "Your request to visit a foreign MS-13 gang member in El Salvador on taxpayer dollars (and possibly drink margaritas) has been denied", and the members of the group paid their own way,^[166] despite Republican representatives Jason Smith (Missouri) and Riley Moore (West Virginia) having had their requests to visit CECOT approved.^[167]

The group also wrote Rubio, asking him to regularly check on Abrego Garcia's well-being, seek his return, and enable his access to counsel.^[166] While in El Salvador, the group met with human rights activists at the Universidad Centroamericano and with U.S. embassy staff, from whom they received a classified briefing,^[166] and sought the release of other detainees.^[168] They called attention to some by name, such as Andry Jose Hernandez.^[167] Lindsay Toczylowski of the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, which representing Hernandez and nine other men that the U.S. sent to CECOT, said "The government wants to disappear these people, so we think talking about who these individuals are and making sure elected officials don't forget about them is the most important lever we have to get them back."^[166]

White House Deputy Chief of Staff and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller said "He was not mistakenly sent to El Salvador" and "This was the right person sent to the right place," contradicting both the Supreme Court's decision that Abrego Garcia's deportation was illegal and the administration's previous statements that the deportation was an administrative error.^[21]

Miller said that acknowledgment of the error came from "a DOJ lawyer who has since been relieved of duty, a saboteur, a Democrat," although NBC noted that Solicitor General Dean John Sauer had also referred to it as an "administrative error" in a filing to the Supreme Court.^[21] White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had also called it a "clerical error".^[169]

Miller also stated that if Bukele were to return Abrego Garcia, he would be deported again,^[21] a view Leavitt concurred with,^[170] saying that "Deporting him back to El Salvador was always going to be the end result" and that there is no scenario in which he would end up living a peaceful life in the United States. Leavitt accused Abrego Garcia of being a foreign terrorist, gang member, and human trafficker gone back to his home country to face the consequences, adding: "I'm not sure what is so difficult about this for everyone in the media to understand."^[170]

On April 14, Trump was reminded of his promise to abide by any Supreme Court order to repatriate someone. He answered: "Why don't you just say, 'Isn't it wonderful that we're keeping criminals out of our country?'" and insulted the network asking the question.^[171] Three days later, asked if he would bring back Abrego Garcia, Trump said that he was "not involved in it ... you'll have to speak to the lawyers".^[172] In an April 22 interview, he repeated that he had left the decision to the DOJ. "I give them no instructions. ... I don't make that decision",^[173] and stated that he hadn't asked Bukele to release Abrego Garcia because "I haven't been asked to ask him by my attorneys."^[174] In an ABC News interview with Terry Moran later that month that aired April 29, Trump agreed with Moran that it's within his power to pick up the phone, call Bukele, and ask for Abrego Garcia's return. "You could get him back. There’s a phone on this desk," Moran said. "I could," Trump replied, adding that if Abrego Garcia "were the gentleman that you [Moran] say he is, I would do that. But he is not."^[175] Trump also said "I'm not the one making this decision" and suggested that he was following government lawyers' legal advice.^[176]

DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin objected to what she described as the characterization of Abrego Garcia as a "media darling" and "just some Maryland father," saying: "Well, Osama bin Laden was also a father, and yet he wasn't a good guy, and they actually are both terrorists."^[177]

On April 16, Bondi said Abrego Garcia is "not coming back to our country. ... There was no situation ever where he was going to stay in this country."^[178][179] Others representing the administration have made similar statements.^[180] On April 18, in response to a New York Times front page headline reading "Senator Meets With Wrongly Deported Maryland Man in El Salvador", the White House tweeted an image of the front page with several edits in red ink: the word "Wrongly" was crossed out, the words "Maryland Man" were crossed out and replaced with "MS-13 Illegal Alien", and the words "Who's Never Coming Back" were added at the end. The tweet also said "Oh, and by the way, @ChrisVanHollen – he's NOT coming back."^[180]

Leavitt told reporters "Foreign terrorists do not have legal protections in the United States of America anymore"^[181] She alleged that Abrego Garcia was a leader within MS-13 and had been involved in human trafficking, adding: "There's a lot of evidence, and the Department of Homeland Security and ICE have that evidence, and I saw it this morning."^{[182][183][184]} She did not elaborate on what she saw.^[184] Vice President JD Vance publicly backed the deportation, falsely stating that Abrego Garcia was "convicted" of being a member of MS-13.^[27] Regarding the claim that Abrego Garcia was not a gang member, Bondi said in an interview that "We have to rely on what ICE says. We have to rely on what Homeland Security says."^[98] White House Senior Director of Counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka suggested that opposing Abrego Garcia's deportation was illegal^[185] by asking if it's aiding and abetting criminals and terrorists.^[186]

The Trump administration also presented documents and press releases from the DHS that intended to show Abrego Garcia as "as a [MS-13] gang member with a violent history". The documents included information related to the 2019 arrest and immigration hearings, a copy of a civil restraining order against Abrego Garcia filed by his wife in 2021, and information related to a 2022 traffic stop.^[187] This was part of "aggressively building a case against the native Salvadoran [...] designed to combat an onslaught of criticism from Democrats and intensifying scrutiny from the courts".^[188] The DOJ also released two documents from 2019 that allegedly tied him to the MS-13 criminal gang, including a detective's summary of statements from a confidential informant whom the detective described as a "past proven and reliable source of information".^[189]

In the restraining order, Abrego Garcia's wife accused him of "punching and scratching her, ripping her shirt, and leaving her bruised".^[190] The DHS stated "Kilmar Abrego Garcia had a history of violence and was not the upstanding 'Maryland Man' the media has portrayed him as".^[191][190]

In response, Vasquez Sura stated:

After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution after a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order in case things escalated. [...] Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process. We were able to work through this situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling. Our marriage only grew stronger in the years that followed. No one is perfect, and no marriage is perfect. That is not a justification for ICE's action of abducting him and deporting him to a country where he was supposed to be protected from deportation. Kilmar has always been a loving partner and father, and I will continue to stand by him and demand justice for him.^[190]

The DHS did not redact Vasquez Sura's home address when it posted the copy of the restraining order, and she and her children subsequently moved into a safe house, as she was concerned that they were no longer safe living in their home.^[192][193]

On April 22, Trump posted on Truth Social that "We cannot give everyone a trial", claiming that holding a trial for everyone the administration wishes to deport would take 200 years and was not possible. The Hill wrote that this appeared to partly be a response to critics arguing violations of due process, particularly Abrego Garcia's.^[194]

A number of news organizations have stated that members of the Trump administration have lied^[195][196] and misrepresented^[196][197] facts and the law to the public regarding Abrego Garcia's deportation and detention.

The Austin American-Statesman found JD Vance's claim that Abrego Garcia was a "convicted MS-13 gang member" to be false because Garcia has neither been charged nor convicted of any crime.^[198]

Poynter Institute found the following statements to be misleading:

• Marco Rubio said that Abrego Garcia was "illegally in the United States and was returned to his country. That's where you deport people back to their country of origin", which is misleading because it fails to recognize that Abrego Garcia had been legally working in the United States since 2019 under the withholding of removal granted in 2019.
• Pam Bondi said "In 2019, two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court, ruled that [Abrego Garcia] was a member of MS-13", which is misleading because "The immigration judges' decision to deny bond is not equivalent to ruling that Abrego Garcia was a gang member".^[197]

Poynter Institute and the libertarian magazine Reason both found the following statements by Stephen Miller to be misleading:

• "We won (the Supreme Court) case 9–0 and people like CNN are portraying it as a loss." This is misleading because the Supreme Court found that the government had failed to follow the law and the orders of the court.^[197]
• "The Supreme Court said the district court order was unlawful and its main components were reversed 9-0 unanimously"^[196][199]

The New Republic said that JD Vance lied in calling Abrego Garcia a gang member and insisting that he could not be returned to the U.S. Vance asked "Are you proposing that we invade El Salvador to retrieve a gang member with no legal right to be in our country? Where in the Supreme Court's decision does it require us to do that?" and musician and writer Mikel Jollet responded "No, the ruling states clearly that you are required to take steps to facilitate his return and update the court on your progress. You have plenty of tools at your disposal (diplomatic and otherwise) to do this without invading El Salvador."^[196] In another article, The New Republic stated that the Trump administration was lying when it said that the United States could do nothing to effectuate the return of Abrego Garcia, as the United States has a "contractual arrangement under which we pay El Salvador about $6 million—or $20,000 per detainee per year", and "Like any other good customer, the United States can easily negotiate the adjustment."^[195]

In the conservative publication National Review, commentator Andrew McCarthy stated that Pam Bondi's statement that two courts ruled that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 was "deeply misleading" and that "[it] also departs from the Justice Department's tradition of providing a complete version of facts – even facts that cut against the government's position – because it's the right thing to do and promotes DOJ's credibility with the judiciary and the public."^[200]

Politifact found Trump "misleadingly glosses over critical details that tell a different story" and "omitted the central point that Abrego Garcia's family, legal team and advocates say is at issue: He was deported without due process".^[201]

On April 18, Donald Trump posted a photo on Truth Social of Abrego Garcia's hand, featuring four tattoos allegedly meant to symbolize MS-13: a marijuana leaf, a smiley face, a cross, and a skull. The Truth Social post said in part "They said he is not a member of MS-13, even though he's got MS-13 tattooed onto his knuckles ..."^[204] In an ABC News interview with Terry Moran that aired on April 29, Trump insisted that the characters "M" "S" "1" "3" themselves were tattooed on Abrego Garcia's knuckles, stating "He had ‘M,' 'S' as clear as you can be" and "[He's] got 'MS-13' on his knuckles" while Moran corrected him that those characters were photoshopped.^[202]

As reported by the New York Post, an ICE source stated that although the use of "a '13' tattoo would have been mandatory for Abrego Garcia if he became part of the notorious gang," the specific symbols shown in photographs of Abrego Garcia's knuckles did not specifically resemble MS-13 affiliation to their knowledge. The ICE source theorized that online speculation regarding the tattoos being meant to resemble the characters "MS-13" could be "legit" but that "the best answer would be from informants and/or members within CECOT. Once he is in there, he cannot deny affiliation."^[205]

A White House spokesperson told PolitiFact that any law enforcement or immigration official with on-the-ground experience could link the tattooed symbols to MS-13. PolitiFact concluded that "Experts in MS-13 and other gangs say the pictorial tattoos shown are not typical designs for MS-13 or other gangs."^[202]

In response to the government's argument that facilitating Abrego Garcia's return is beyond their scope of responsibility, as he is now in Salvadoran custody, U.S. judges have noted that the legal issue is not limited to Abrego Garcia's deportation. In her April 5 opinion, U.S. District Court Judge Xinis stated:^[206][100]

[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 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held a similar opinion, noting that the administration's arguments, if taken to their ends, could lead to the deportation of citizens without any option for remedy. In its April 17 ruling that referenced Trump's comments suggesting doing so, the court wrote:^[141]

If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies?

Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor made a similar observation in her April 10 concurrence:^[111]

The Government's argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.

Allsides looked at the language used to describe the Abrego Garcia case by a variety of news organizations with different political leanings during the period from April 15 to April 18, especially in their headlines. It found that the language varied in several ways. In their headlines, news outlets they assessed as left-leaning were more likely to describe Abrego Garcia as a "Maryland man", outlets they assessed as centrist tended to omit a descriptor, and those they assessed as right-leaning were more likely to describe him in terms of gang affiliation or domestic violence. The language varied also varied in terms of whether he was or wasn't identified as a "migrant", with the outlets they assessed as right-leaning being more likely to identify him that way, and often noting that he had entered the country illegally, and those they identified as left-leaning being more likely to omit this. A third dimension along which the outlets varied was how characterized the deportation: describing him as having been "mistakenly" deported in the body of the article by outlets they assessed as centrist, as an "administrative error" in a detail "buried" in the article for those they assessed as right-leaning, and as "wrongly" or "wrongfully" deported by those they assessed as left-leaning.^[207]

In an April 22 White House press briefing, right-wing social media influencer Tim Pool referred to what he called the "Maryland man hoax", described by him as part of "false narratives" by mainstream media who use the phrase "Maryland man" to describe Abrego Garcia instead of calling him "an MS-13 gang member".^[208] In a Hungarian Conservative opinion column, Márton Losonczi stated that many mainstream media outlets – including Politico, Axios, Reuters, NPR, PBS, ABC News, The Guardian, and CNN – had referred to Abrego Garcia as a "Maryland man" or "Maryland dad", and proposed that they used this phrase to turn Abrego Garcia's deportation into a "golden 'human interest story' to try to sway public opinion on immigration".^[209] Becket Adams also highlighted the use of "Maryland man" in an opinion column, and objected to it, asserting "he is not a 'Maryland man'. He is a Salvadoran national who has been living in the U.S. illegally since 2011, most recently residing in the state of Maryland." Becket called the phrase "supremely unhelpful", and said that its use tends to "muddy the waters" of this legal case, especially for those who only attend to news reporting on a casual basis.^[210]

Media Matters for America argued that "right-wing media personalities" and news sources have often downplayed or rejected Abrego Garcia's due process rights.^[211]

External videos
"El Salvador trip was to defend 'the rights of this man to due process': Van Hollen", April 20, 2025, ABC News, "This Week"

The U.S. government's acknowledgment of the deportation error has sparked significant legal and political debate, raising concerns about the efficacy and fairness of U.S. immigration laws and procedures. The Atlantic reports that the standard course for the government to deport someone with protected status would be to reopen the case and introduce new evidence arguing for deportation. The magazine quotes an unnamed government attorney remarking on the government's actions in Abrego Garcia's case as "What. The. Fuck."^[26]

On April 15, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, Abrego Garcia's wife, pleaded for the return of her husband outside of the Maryland courthouse that was holding a status hearing on his case:

My family can't be robbed of another day without seeing Kilmar. This administration has already taken so much from my children, from his mother, brother, sisters and me. [...] Kilmar, if you can hear me, stay strong. God hasn't forgotten about you. [...] Our children are asking when will you come home. I pray for the day I tell them the time and date that you will return.^[212][213]

Politico reports that Abrego Garcia's deportation has become a political flashpoint, with Democratic lawmakers viewing the administration's refusal to return him despite the Supreme Court ruling as the constitutional crisis they've been warning of, and Republicans, with the support of the administration, seeking to move away from the litigation to make the issue about illegal immigration, an issue they believe is to their favor.^[214]

Several Congressional Democrats called for Abrego Garcia's release. Representative Adriano Espaillat of New York stated in a press conference that he would write to President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele to formally ask for Abrego Garcia's release and to know his condition, and that he hoped to visit the Terrorism Confinement Center. He noted that Abrego Garcia had been jailed without the presentation of any criminal charges in either the United States or in El Salvador.^[215]

Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland connected Abrego Garcia to deportations under Trump more broadly, speaking of "people being disappeared" in America, including visiting students and legal immigrants.^[216]

Representative Joaquin Castro of Texas called for accountability for President Bukele, under his impending visit to the U.S., for the imprisonment of Abrego Garcia and others in what Castro called "gulags" and "torture prisons".^[216]

On April 14, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, stated that the administration was required by law to provide the committee with "any written agreements made with the Salvadoran government on this issue", and requested immediate compliance with the law.^[217]

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which is composed of Democrats, has also called for Abrego Garcia's release.^[218]

Republican congressman Jason Smith toured CECOT, as did Republican Congressman Riley Moore,^[219] who was photographed giving a double thumbs-up in front of a cell of prisoners.^[220] When asked about the issue at a town hall with constituents on April 15, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley stated:

Well, it's not a question of the president following the court order. It's a question of is the president of El Salvador going to do what our Supreme Court wants done? And obviously our Supreme Court doesn't have any control over him, and he says he's not going to return him. So if there's a constitutional crisis, it's not being caused by President Trump, it's being caused by the president of El Salvador. [...] I would expect our president to act in good faith, and I think our president will do that, of making those requests of the president of El Salvador, but whether or not, but how the president of El Salvador responds would be up to that president of El Salvador.^[221]

Republican House Majority Whip Tom Emmer said in an interview that Abrego Garcia did have due process, in the form of the asylum hearing where his application was rejected. Pressed on the 2019 hearing that granted Abrego Garcia the ability to stay in the U.S., and his protection order not to be deported specifically to El Salvador, Emmer dodged. He disclaimed U.S. responsibility for "a citizen of El Salvador who is now in El Salvador".^[222]

Democratic governor of Illinois JB Pritzker took steps to have his state boycott El Salvador over Abrego Garcia's imprisonment, directing various Illinois pension funds to review whether they have investments in companies based in the country, and the Department of Central Management Services to review whether the state has granted procurement contracts to companies based in or controlled by El Salvador. He declared that due process was guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, and Donald Trump's eroding of fundamental Constitutional rights had to be fought to restore the balance of power.^[223]

Pritzker had previously on X pointed to Trump's remarks to President Bukele that "Home-growns are next" and that Bukele needed to build more prisons, and Pritzker warned that "if they get away with it now, they'll do it to anyone."^[224] Democratic governor of Maryland Wes Moore condemned the deportation on the grounds of inadequate due process.^[41]

Abrego Garcia's deportation resulted in significant public activism from both his local union, International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers (SMART) Local 100, and the SMART International Union.^[225] SMART General President Michael Coleman said the following in response to his deportation: "In his pursuit of the life promised by the American dream, Brother Kilmar was literally helping to build this great country. What did he get in return? Arrest and deportation to a nation whose prisons face outcry from human rights organizations. SMART condemns his treatment in the strongest possible terms, and we demand his rightful return."^[226]

The Maryland-based immigrant services and advocacy organization CASA has been deeply involved in advocating for Abrego Garcia's return to the U.S. Kilmar is a member of CASA. The organization has mobilized community support, organized rallies, launched petitions, and facilitated meetings between Garcia's family and lawmakers. CASA's legal team has also played a direct role in the litigation, with one of its advocates serving as co-counsel for Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura. The group has worked to amplify the voices of Garcia's family, ensuring his case remains in the public eye despite government resistance.^[227]

In the April 14 segment of The Daily Show, Jon Stewart commented on Bukele's visit with Trump earlier in the day, where the presidents had spoken about Abrego Garcia remaining at CECOT rather than being returned to the U.S.:

Can I honestly tell you? Like, they're fucking enjoying this, like the two of them: our president, their president, [they're like], "I can't do it. I guess we'll just have to let him rot in fucking prison, even though he didn't deserve to be there." [...] I know [Trump and Bukele] don't care about this guy [...] but somebody else cares about this person, and you just randomly, with no evidence that you'll show anybody, call him a terrorist.^[228]

In an opinion column for the Chicago Tribune, Elizabeth Shackelford wrote that CECOT is not a prison but "a concentration camp", intended to confine people "without legal justification or limits", and "to break men's spirits and instill fear outside its walls." She pointed out that authoritarians often "hone tools of oppression against unpopular populations" before using them against whoever they want, and argued that Trump's attack on due process – "our constitutional right to not be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty and property" – is a threat that the Foundering Fathers recognized, noting the analogy between this case and one of the items they listed as a grievance against King George III in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences".^[229]

On the April 24, 2025, segment of The Megyn Kelly Show, Megyn Kelly was interviewing lawyer and legal analyst Will Chamberlain regarding Abrego Garcia's membership in MS-13. She noted both a District Court Judge and his lawyer say he is not in that gang because the informant said Abrego Garcia was a member of the "Westerns clique" and that clique is only based in Brentwood, Long Island in New York. But Abrego Garcia has never lived in New York. However, her guest responded by saying:

CHAMBERLAIN: Yah, except that the Western clique does actually operate in Maryland and DOJ has routinely claimed that in any number of filings, plea agreements, indictments. I am unclear that the plaintiff's ... this claim came from the underlying complaint just filed by one plantiff's lawyer where he said that the DOJ has said that they operation in New York a place where Abrego Garcia has never lived. As far as I can tell, he basically just invented this out of thin air based on doing one quick search on the DOJ website for "Western Clique MS-13.^[230]

After Trump agreed in an interview that he could call Bukele and ask him to release Abrego Garcia, Greg Sargent, an opinion columnist for The New Republic, wrote that the statement "destroys" the Trump administration’s argument that it cannot "compel Bukele to release him because it would intrude on Salvadoran sovereignty to dictate that country’s treatment of one of its own", in that a request would not intrude on sovereignty. Sargent also commented on Trump's response to a question about why he wasn't acting in accordance with the Supreme Court's April 10 order that the administration facilitate Abrego Garcia's return: "I’m not the one making this decision. We have lawyers that don’t want to do this." Sargent claimed that this implies Trump is either "knowingly violating the Supreme Court and hiding behind his lawyers to do so", or the DOJ is "deceiving him about what the high court has ordered—revealing he’s weak and subject to manipulation."^[231]

Historian Timothy Snyder describes the case as the "beginning of an American policy of state terror" against those living in the U.S., and discusses the development of state terror. In the initial stage, the state attempts to control language: it identifies some people as "criminals" and "terrorists"; it implies that because these people are bad, its own responses are good; and it associates any criticism of its actions with support for criminality and terrorism. In the next stage, the state moves away from the rule of law (for example, by finding purportedly "legal" means of avoiding constitutional constraints on its actions) and towards coercive power. This stage involves three components: a "leader principle", or Führerprinzip, in which the sovereign claims a popular mandate that makes their claims and actions proper; a "state of exception", in which the sovereign claims a threat that justifies lawless state actions against those supposedly creating the threat; and a "zone of statelessness", either in another country or in an internal concentration camp, where people are not protected by laws. Snyder argues that all of these components are present in this case, and that this is a test of whether Americans will stand for the rule of law, both individually and by demanding that Congress do likewise.^[232]

Legal scholar Ryan Goodman and counterterrorism expert Thomas Joscelyn note that the Trump administration acknowledged violating a judge's withholding of removal order, and that both the district court and the circuit court of appeals have ruled that the administration violated Abrego Garcia's right to due process. They add that not only is the administration "openly flouting" the Supreme Court's order that it facilitate Abrego Garcia's release, it claims that it cannot do so, and even mocks the idea of his return. They then argue that despite the government's efforts to focus the public's attention on Abrego Garcia's alleged ties to MS-13, the case "is about the rule of law, not allegations about Abrego Garcia's gang membership", in particular, "the Trump administration's defiance of the courts and denial of due process – a most basic constitutional right."^[233]

In a New York Times / Sienna College poll of registered voters in late April 2025, 52% disapproved of Trump's handling of "the case involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia", compared to 31% who approved. Asked whether Trump should or shouldn't be able to ignore Supreme Court rulings, 76% said that he should not be able to do this, compared with 6% who thought he should be able to. The remainder of those polled either didn't respond to the question or said that they didn't know.^[234] In a Washington Post / ABC News / Ipsos poll of U.S. adults published the same day, 42% thought that the government should bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S., 26% thought that he should remain imprisoned in El Salvador, and 31% said that they didn't know enough to answer.^[235]

• J.G.G. v. Trump – Lawsuit challenging US deportations under the Alien Enemies Act
• W.M.M. v. Trump – Lawsuit challenging US deportations under the Alien Enemies Act
• Judicial review – Ability of courts to review actions by executive and legislatures
• Deportation and removal from the United States

• U.S. Immigration Court (Baltimore, Maryland): In the Matter of Kilmer Armado Abrego-Garcia [sic], Initial bond proceedings order (May 22, 2019); In the Matter of Kilmar Armando Abrego-Garcia [sic], Withholding of removal order (October 10, 2019); In the Matter of Kilmer Armado Abrego-Garcia [sic], Board of Immigration Appeals bond proceedings order (December 19, 2019)
• Abrego Garcia Prince George's County Police Department Gang Field Interview Sheet released by USDOJ on April 16, 2025.
• U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland: Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:25-cv-00951
• First appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 25-1345
• Second appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 25-1404
• U.S. Supreme Court: Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 24A949