In a scathing rebuke, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the immediate return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident erroneously deported to El Salvador.
The judge condemned the deportation as “wholly lawless,” emphasizing that Abrego Garcia’s detention and removal lacked any legal justification.
Deportation deemed unconstitutional
Abrego Garcia, 29, had been residing legally in the United States with his U.S. citizen wife and their five-year-old son, who has autism and other disabilities. Despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that granted him protection from deportation due to credible fears of gang persecution in El Salvador, he was arrested on March 12 in Baltimore and subsequently deported on March 15.
Judge Xinis highlighted that his removal violated U.S. law and described the government’s actions as a “grievous error” that “shocks the conscience.”
Government admits ‘administrative error’
The Trump administration acknowledged that Abrego Garcia’s deportation resulted from an “administrative error.” However, officials have argued against his return, alleging without evidence that he has ties to the MS-13 gang. Judge Xinis dismissed these claims, noting the lack of substantiating evidence and emphasizing that Abrego Garcia has no criminal record.
Legal and political ramifications
The Department of Justice has placed attorney Erez Reuveni and his supervisor, August Flentje, on administrative leave following the court’s condemnation of the deportation. This move has sparked controversy, with legal advocacy groups defending Reuveni’s ethical stance and criticizing the administration’s handling of the case.
The administration’s actions have drawn widespread criticism from immigration advocates and legal experts, raising concerns about due process violations and the aggressive nature of current immigration enforcement policies. Judge Xinis’s ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in checking executive overreach and upholding constitutional protections.
As the administration appeals the court’s decision, the case continues to highlight tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary over immigration policies and the treatment of individuals with protected legal status.