The Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case

The case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia has emerged as a pivotal legal battle that extends far beyond immigration policy, raising profound questions about executive power, judicial authority, and constitutional protections. This Maryland resident’s unlawful deportation to El Salvador has created a constitutional showdown with significant implications for all individuals in the United States, regardless of citizenship status.

Background and Protected Legal Status

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was born in July 1995 in San Salvador, El Salvador. At the age of 16, he fled to the United States in 2011 due to threats from Barrio 18, a violent gang that had been extorting his mother’s pupusa business and threatening his family¹². For approximately 14 years, Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland, working in construction, marrying a U.S. citizen named Jennifer Stefania Vasquez Sura, and helping raise three children with disabilities, all of whom are U.S. citizens³²⁴.

Critically, in 2019, Abrego Garcia received a special form of immigration protection called “withholding of removal” from an immigration judge³⁵. This status, while not providing a pathway to citizenship like asylum, legally protected him from being deported to El Salvador due to his “well-founded fear of future persecution” there¹⁵. As part of this status, he received a federal work permit and was required to report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) annually³².

Legal Foundation of Withholding of Removal

The immigration judge’s decision to grant Abrego Garcia this protection came after extensive evaluation of evidence. In his 2019 ruling, Immigration Judge David M. Jones assessed Abrego Garcia to be truthful, stating:

“The Respondent provided credible responses to the questions asked. His testimony was internally consistent, externally consistent with his asylum application and other documents, and appeared free of embellishment. Further, he provided substantial documentation buttressing his claims… The court finds the Respondent credible.”¹

The judge determined that Abrego Garcia faced legitimate danger from Barrio 18 in El Salvador. This gang had previously extorted money from his family’s business, threatened to harm Kilmar, rape his sisters, or kill his brother Cesar if the family didn’t comply with their demands¹.

The Unlawful Deportation

Despite his protected status, on March 15, 2025, Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador after being detained by ICE agents while returning home with his son⁶⁷. He was transferred through detention centers in Louisiana and Texas before being summarily removed from the country without any notification, legal proceedings, or hearings⁷. The Trump administration later acknowledged that his deportation was an “administrative mistake”⁶³².

Upon arrival in El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was placed in Centro del Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a maximum-security prison intended for individuals accused of gang affiliations or terrorism⁶¹. Human rights advocates have raised serious concerns about the treatment of inmates in this facility⁶.

Why the Deportation Was Unlawful

The deportation violated multiple legal protections:

1. It directly contravened the withholding of removal order that explicitly forbade sending him back to El Salvador⁵².
2. It bypassed required legal procedures. To properly deport someone with this protected status, the government would need to reopen the immigration case, present new evidence, and formally terminate the protective status through proper judicial channels⁵⁸.
3. It denied Abrego Garcia his right to due process. He should have been informed of any intention to deport him and allowed to present his case in a court hearing⁵.

“In March 2025, federal agents seized Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and, as the result of an ‘administrative error,’ removed him to El Salvador, in undisputed violation of a court order prohibiting his removal to that country.”⁹

Legal Proceedings and Court Rulings

Following his unlawful deportation, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed suit in federal court in Maryland. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to return him by April 7, 2025³⁸. The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued a ruling on April 10, 2025².

Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court’s unsigned order, issued with no public dissents, 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.”²

The 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.”²

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, added:

“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 Government’s argument… 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.”²

District Court Follow-Up

Despite the Supreme Court ruling, the administration continued to resist bringing Abrego Garcia back. At a hearing on April 15, 2025, Judge Xinis declared:

“Every day Mr. Abrego Garcia is detained in CECOT is another date of irreparable harm,”

She gave both sides two weeks to complete expedited discovery in the case, including sworn depositions from Trump administration officials⁸.

Earlier, Judge Xinis had stated that Abrego Garcia’s “continued presence in El Salvador… constitutes irreparable harm”¹⁰.

The Administration’s Arguments and Actions

Claims of Gang Affiliation

The administration has claimed that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, despite his lack of criminal record³¹⁸. This allegation stems from a 2019 incident when he was arrested with three other men in a Home Depot parking lot while seeking day labor work¹². A police informant made the gang claim but provided no proof; police dismissed the tip².

The evidence included a “Chicago Bulls hat and hoodie” and an uncorroborated claim he belonged to an MS-13 clique in New York—a place he has never lived¹⁹. The judge at the time dismissed the clothing as insufficient proof⁹.

One police officer involved in the case was later suspended for “giving confidential information about a case to a sex worker”².

Jurisdictional Arguments

The administration has also argued that U.S. courts lack the jurisdiction to order someone returned from a foreign country²⁷.

“No law permits the Government to divest individuals of their Constitutional rights by the trick of paying another sovereign to jail them on its behalf.”⁹

Diplomatic Complications and Current Status

As of mid-April 2025, Abrego Garcia remains in Salvadoran custody⁸. At a White House meeting on April 14, President Nayib Bukele called the idea of returning him “preposterous”³¹⁰.

Reports suggest El Salvador may be receiving up to “$6 million annually to detain Garcia and others”¹⁰.

DOJ has stated that if he returns, DHS may again detain and deport him to a third country or revoke his status¹¹⁸.

Expert Legal Analysis and Broader Implications

Kim Wehle (University of Baltimore School of Law) warns that this case suggests Trump could bypass due process even for U.S. citizens⁶.

Laurence Tribe noted that while the Supreme Court ruled correctly, the opinion leaves troubling space for executive power to override court authority¹².

Maureen Sweeney (University of Maryland) added that endorsing the administration’s argument would destroy the concept of legal order in immigration law⁷.

Is there potential for use on US citizens?

Reports say Trump told President Bukele during a meeting:

“Homegrown criminals next.”

Bukele allegedly replied:

“We’ve got space.”

Trump answered:

“I’m all for it.”¹³

This of course would face fierce legal challenges but it is chilling to think it’s being considered.¹⁴

Conclusion

The Kilmar Abrego Garcia case raises foundational questions: Can the executive branch strip legal protections by simply removing someone from U.S. jurisdiction?

If allowed to stand, this tactic may not only endanger immigrants but also imperil constitutional protections for U.S. citizens.

As Judge Xinis said, each day Abrego Garcia remains detained is “irreparable harm.” The resolution of this case will define the future relationship between judicial authority and executive reach.

Updates

• Update 4/17: My friend Jason (@molaramlinux) pointed out that when the Government attempted to deport Garcia in 2019 that he applied for asylum. His claim was denied because he hadn’t filed within the deadline. This was the same case where the judge rejected the evidence of gang affiliation and awarded him the withholding of removal. So it seems moot to me but it was important to him so I’m adding a mention. - Lib

• Update 2 - 4/17: Reports have surfaced of previous accusations of domestic violence against Garcia. To be clear no charges were ever filed and his spouse who filed the claimed allowed the application for the protective order to lapse. They were reconciled and remained together until his deportation. Has no bearing on the unlawful deportation but again seemed worth noting. - Lib

• Update 3 - 4/17: Appeals court’s blistering opinion upholds order for Abrego Garcia’s return The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday declined to lift a judge’s order that the Trump administration “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, admonishing the Justice Department in the ruling.

• Update 4 - 4/17: It appears Garcia has been released from the Salvadoran prison. H/T to @molaramlinux

Sources