By HHE Staff
April 5, 2025
Greenbelt, Maryland — In a landmark ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has mandated the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Maryland resident, who was erroneously deported to El Salvador last month. The court has set a deadline of 11:59 p.m. on Monday, April 7, for his repatriation.
Abrego Garcia entered the United States in 2011 as a teenager fleeing gang violence in El Salvador. He had been residing legally in Maryland with his wife, a U.S. citizen, and their three children, two of whom have autism and one with epilepsy. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from deportation, acknowledging the potential dangers he faced if returned to his home country.
Despite this legal protection, Abrego Garcia was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers on March 12, 2025. He was informed that his immigration status had changed—a claim his attorneys assert was false. Subsequently, he was deported on March 15 and incarcerated in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a facility notorious for its harsh conditions.
During a hearing on April 4, Judge Xinis described the deportation as “an illegal act,” emphasizing that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act due to the absence of a judicial proceeding. She expressed frustration over the lack of clarity regarding the authority under which Abrego Garcia was arrested and deported. citeturn0search9
Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni conceded that Abrego Garcia should not have been removed from the U.S. and acknowledged the government’s failure to provide satisfactory answers about the incident. Despite admitting the error, the administration argued that it lacked the legal authority to retrieve him from Salvadoran custody—a claim Judge Xinis rejected, ordering his return by the specified deadline.
Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, has been vocal about the family’s distress since his deportation. Speaking at a news conference, she highlighted the emotional and financial hardships they have endured, particularly given the special needs of their children. Advocacy groups, including CASA, have rallied behind the family, emphasizing the dangers Abrego Garcia faces in El Salvador and the unjust nature of his deportation.
The Trump administration has indicated plans to appeal Judge Xinis’s order. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt questioned the judge’s jurisdiction, suggesting that inquiries about Abrego Garcia’s return should be directed to Salvadoran authorities. The Justice Department has labeled the order “indefensible” and is seeking an immediate stay from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
This case underscores ongoing tensions surrounding the administration’s immigration policies, particularly its reliance on the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expedite deportations. Legal experts and human rights advocates have raised concerns about due process violations and the potential for wrongful deportations under such measures.
Abrego Garcia’s deportation is not an isolated incident. In recent weeks, the administration has deported hundreds of individuals to El Salvador, many of whom have been accused of gang affiliations without substantial evidence. These actions have drawn sharp criticism from civil rights organizations, legal experts, and some lawmakers, who argue that such practices violate constitutional protections and international human rights standards.
Judge Xinis’s ruling represents a significant judicial rebuke of the administration’s deportation tactics. It highlights the judiciary’s role in upholding legal protections and ensuring that governmental actions adhere to the rule of law. The outcome of the administration’s appeal will likely have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement practices and the rights of individuals facing deportation.
As the deadline approaches, all eyes are on the administration’s response and its compliance with the court’s order. Abrego Garcia’s legal team, along with advocacy groups, remain vigilant, prepared to take further action if necessary to secure his safe return. The case continues to evolve, serving as a critical test of the balance between national immigration policies and the safeguarding of individual rights.
