In a landmark ruling that has ignited a fierce legal battle over deportation policies and judicial authority, U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland ordered the Trump administration on April 4, 2025, to facilitate the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who was erroneously deported to El Salvador.
Judge Xinis declared the deportation unconstitutional and mandated that Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States by April 7.
The administration has admitted the deportation was an “administrative error.” Still, it challenges the court’s jurisdiction to enforce his return from a foreign country, spotlighting critical questions about accountability and oversight in immigration enforcement.
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a long-time resident of Beltsville, Maryland, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on March 12, 2025, as he left his job as a sheet metal worker to pick up his five-year-old son.
Within three days, on March 15, he was deported to El Salvador, despite a 2019 court order explicitly prohibiting his removal to that country due to the risk of persecution from gang violence he fled as a teenager. Having lived in the U.S. since 2010, Abrego Garcia was a vital part of his family, supporting his wife and son, who has autism and intellectual disabilities.
The deportation landed him in El Salvador’s Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a notorious high-security prison known for its harsh conditions. The Trump administration later conceded in court filings that Abrego Garcia’s removal was a mistake, acknowledging that ICE was aware of his protected status but deported him nonetheless.
For Abrego Garcia’s wife and son, life without him has been a nightmare.
“He was our rock,” Now my son cries for him every night, and I can’t explain where his dad went or why he can’t come home.”
His wife said.
In 2019, an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal,” a protection that barred his deportation to El Salvador due to the likelihood of persecution. While this status allowed for potential removal from the U.S. to another country, it explicitly prohibited sending him back to El Salvador. The government’s claim that he was affiliated with the MS-13 gang—a justification for his deportation—appears undermined by its admission of error.
This incident occurred amid a broader deportation sweep on March 15, which included over 250 Venezuelan men sent to El Salvador, many with no apparent connection to the country. The administration’s actions suggest a systemic oversight failure, raising concerns about due process.
Judge Paula Xinis’s ruling was unequivocal. On April 4, she stated, “There is no evidence to hold” Abrego Garcia at CECOT, and his arrest on March 12 had “no basis for removal.”
She emphasized the constitutional breach, declaring,
“That means from the moment he was seized, it was unconstitutional.”
Ordering his return by 11:59 p.m. on April 7, Xinis asserted that the deportation was “an illegal act” and that the government had apprehended him “without legal basis” before removing him “without further process or legal justification.”
The Trump administration has not disputed the error but argues that the court lacks authority to order Abrego Garcia’s return. Department of Justice attorney Erez Reuveni contended that since Abrego Garcia is now in Salvadoran custody, the Maryland court has no jurisdiction.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed this, stating,
“We are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador.”
Adviser Stephen Miller took a more derisive tone, mocking Xinis on social media by claiming she “thinks she’s the president of El Salvador.” Even Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele reportedly joined in ridiculing the ruling.
This stance implies that once a deportee leaves U.S. soil—even mistakenly—courts cannot intervene, a position that could shield the administration from accountability for immigration errors.
Court documents filed on April 1 acknowledged the “administrative error,” yet officials have resisted action. When Judge Xinis pressed Reuveni on why Abrego Garcia was sent to CECOT, he admitted he had “no idea.”
He had received no clear explanation from the Department of Homeland Security. Asked why Abrego Garcia couldn’t be returned, Reuveni said he’d posed the same question to officials but found their answers unsatisfactory, requesting just 24 hours to address the issue.
This ambivalence contrasts with the administration’s dismissive public rhetoric, highlighting a tension between legal accountability and political posturing.
Attorneys for some deportees allege their clients were mislabeled as gang members based on tattoos, echoing concerns about Abrego Garcia’s treatment. Many now languish in CECOT, raising humanitarian and legal questions.
If upheld, Judge Xinis’s ruling could compel the administration to revisit these cases, affirming judicial power to remedy wrongful deportations—even across borders.
