Chief Justice John Roberts Intervenes in Deportation Case

Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to pause a midnight deadline for the Trump administration to return a Maryland man mistakenly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

The temporary order comes hours after a Justice Department emergency appeal to the Supreme Court arguing U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis overstepped her authority when she ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia returned to the United States.

Background of the Case

The administration has conceded that Abrego Garcia should not have been sent to El Salvador because an immigration judge found he likely would face persecution by local gangs.

But he is no longer in U.S. custody and the government has no way to get him back, the administration argued.

Xinis gave the administration until just before midnight to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return.

Justice Department Appeal

“The district court’s injunction—which requires Abrego Garcia’s release from the custody of a foreign sovereign and return to the United States by midnight on Monday—is patently unlawful,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in court papers, casting the order as one in “a deluge of unlawful injunctions” judges have issued to slow President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The Justice Department appeal was directed to Roberts because he handles appeals from Maryland.

Related Cases

The Trump administration is separately asking the Supreme Court to allow Trump to resume deportations of Venezuelan migrants accused of being gang members to the same Salvadoran prison under an 18th century wartime law.

The federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, denied the administration’s request for a stay. “There is no question that the government screwed up here,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote in a brief opinion accompanying the unanimous denial.

Abrego Garcia’s Story

Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Salvadoran national who has never been charged or convicted of any crime, was detained by immigration agents and deported last month.

He had a permit from DHS to legally work in the U.S. and was a sheet metal apprentice pursuing a journeyman license, his attorney said. His wife is a U.S. citizen.

In 2019, an immigration judge barred the U.S. from deporting Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.

White House Response

The White House has described Abrego Garcia’s deportation as an “administrative error” but has also cast him as an MS-13 gang member. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia said there is no evidence he was in MS-13.

“The Executive branch may not seize individuals from the streets, deposit them in foreign prisons in violation of court orders, and then invoke the separation of powers to insulate its unlawful actions from judicial scrutiny,” Abrego Garcia’s lawyers wrote in a response filed moments after Roberts issued his temporary pause.

Conclusion

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia highlights the complexities and challenges of the U.S. immigration system. The Trump administration’s handling of the case has raised questions about the use of executive power and the treatment of immigrants.

As the case continues to unfold, it will be important to monitor the actions of the Supreme Court and the Trump administration to ensure that the rights of all individuals, including immigrants, are protected.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Who is Kilmar Abrego Garcia?

A: Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a 29-year-old Salvadoran national who was detained by immigration agents and deported to El Salvador despite having a permit to work in the U.S. and a pending immigration case.

Q: Why was Abrego Garcia deported?

A: Abrego Garcia was deported due to an administrative error, according to the White House. However, his attorneys argue that he was wrongly deported and that there is no evidence to support the claim that he is an MS-13 gang member.

Q: What is the current status of the case?

A: The case is currently before the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice John Roberts issuing a temporary pause on the deadline for the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

Q: What are the implications of this case?

A: The case has implications for the use of executive power and the treatment of immigrants in the U.S. It also highlights the need for greater oversight and accountability in the immigration system.