The Justice Department’s appeal against a federal judge’s order to return Kilmar Abrego-Garcia to the U.S. ignites a clash over immigration policy and authority.
Quick Takes
- Judge Paula Xinis ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, contesting his deportation as unlawful.
- The DOJ argues the judge lacks authority over international repatriation.
- Abrego-Garcia was deported despite having legal protection granted in 2019.
- The DOJ acknowledges an “administrative error” in the deportation but disputes jurisdiction.
Federal Judge Orders Repatriation
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis demanded the return of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, citing a violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act after he was deported to El Salvador. Abrego-Garcia had been living in Maryland and was protected by a previous judicial order. His deportation was described as a procedural error, contested by his attorneys, who assert his innocence in alleged gang affiliations.
Officials have questioned the deportation’s legality, with Judge Xinis noting, “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 the INA.”
Trump Administration Sends Brutally Honest Response Saying Judge Can't Undo a Perfectly Good Deportation | streiff, RedState
The Justice Department filed an application for an emergency stay of an order requiring an adjudicated MS-13 member be brought back the United States that… pic.twitter.com/6rQBym4WrB
— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) April 6, 2025
DOJ’s Arguments Against Repatriation
The Department of Justice insists that U.S. District Judge Xinis has overstepped, asserting that there is no judicial authority to compel repatriation from foreign custody. The DOJ’s stance is bolstered by their argument that assisting with Abrego-Garcia’s return would exceed permissible governmental conduct.
The Justice Department has appealed to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for a stay on the judge’s order, emphasizing the complexity of engaging in international legal matters. Public and political figures demand a thorough resolution that aligns with legal standards.
Public and Political Response
The deportation has sparked significant discourse regarding U.S. immigration enforcement practices. Maryland officials and immigrant advocates have expressed discontent, criticizing the act’s legality and its implication on family integrity. The revelation of Erez Reuveni, DOJ’s suspended lawyer admitting a lack of deportation grounds, compounds the narrative.
“This incident underscores the Administration’s complete disregard for due process rights as they pursue their indiscriminate mass deportation policy. The Trump Administration must take immediate action to right this wrong,” stated Maryland’s Senators, Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks.
Adding to the complexity, the deportation aligns with broader challenges against previous administration policies regarding non-criminal immigrant deportations and procedural errors. The case demands attention to personal rights within immigration jurisprudence while balancing national security concerns.
Sources:
- Judge Rebukes Trump Admin’s Request—’Shocks the Conscience’ – Newsweek
- Judge orders the Trump administration to return man who was mistakenly deported : NPR
- Judge Again Orders Trump Admin to Return Man Deported to El Salvador | The Epoch Times
