Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily halted a judge’s midnight deadline for the Trump administration to return to the country a man mistakenly deported to El Salvador. This decision, made on April 7, 2025, allows the high court to evaluate the Trump administration’s emergency request to lift the order imposed by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis.
The controversy centers around Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who has been living in Maryland. His deportation occurred despite a 2019 immigration judge’s ruling that protected him from being sent back to his home country due to fears of violence. The administration has admitted to making an “administrative error” in his case, which has sparked significant legal and public scrutiny.
Abrego Garcia was among hundreds of migrants deported to El Salvador last month, a country known for its violent gang activity. The Trump administration has alleged that he has connections to the notorious MS-13 gang, based on information from a confidential informant. However, Abrego Garcia’s family strongly denies these claims, asserting that he has no ties to gangs.
Judge Xinis had set a deadline for the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia by 11:59 p.m. EDT on April 7. The Justice Department, however, contended that bringing Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. was impossible since he was now in the custody of Salvadoran authorities. In court filings, the department stated that the lower court’s ruling “sets the United States up for failure.”
In response to the urgency of the situation, the administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court on the morning of April 7, shortly before a midlevel appeals court rejected a previous attempt to delay the deadline. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys criticized the administration’s request, describing it as “built on a series of strawmen.” They argued that he is currently imprisoned in El Salvador solely because of a mistake made by the U.S. government, likening his situation to a “Kafka-esque” error.
Roberts’s order, while a temporary victory for the Trump administration, does not indicate how the Supreme Court will ultimately rule on the matter. The chief justice has called for a response from Abrego Garcia’s attorneys by 5 p.m. EDT on April 8, 2025.
Abrego Garcia’s case highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy under the Trump administration. He fled El Salvador in 2011 at the age of 16 after facing threats from gang members. He has since built a life in Maryland with his wife, a U.S. citizen, and their five-year-old son. Prior to his deportation, he worked as a full-time sheet metal apprentice and had no criminal record in either the U.S. or El Salvador.
The deportation itself took place on March 15, 2025, just three days after Abrego Garcia was arrested by ICE officials. The administration has faced backlash for its handling of deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, which has been criticized as unlawful by various legal experts.
In a sworn testimony, Robert Cerna, the ICE Field Office Director, confirmed on March 31 that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was indeed an “error” and “an oversight.” Despite this acknowledgment, the Trump administration has continued to argue that courts lack the authority to order Abrego Garcia’s return now that he is in El Salvador.
This legal battle has drawn significant attention, not only due to its implications for Abrego Garcia’s future but also as a broader reflection of the contentious immigration policies enacted by the Trump administration. The administration’s attempts to expedite deportations have often been met with legal challenges, and this case is no exception.
Last Friday, Judge Xinis ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego Garcia by the aforementioned deadline, asserting that the ruling was necessary to restore him to his previous status and to prevent ongoing irreparable harm resulting from his unlawful removal. The judge’s ruling emphasized that the defendants had seized Abrego Garcia without lawful authority and had failed to present him to any immigration judge or officer before forcibly transporting him to El Salvador.
As the Supreme Court prepares to deliberate on this case, many are watching closely to see how the situation unfolds. The outcome could have significant implications for not just Abrego Garcia but for the broader landscape of immigration law and policy in the United States. The administration’s efforts to maintain control over deportations will likely continue to face scrutiny, especially in light of the ongoing legal disputes.
In a separate matter, the Supreme Court had previously delayed a judge’s midnight deadline to resume $2 billion in foreign aid payments in February 2025, suggesting that Roberts’s recent decision may follow a similar judicial pattern of caution.
As the legal proceedings continue, the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains a poignant reminder of the complexities and challenges surrounding immigration policy and enforcement in the United States.
