In a dramatic and strongly worded ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis demanded that the Trump administration return a suspected MS-13 gang member who had been wrongly deported to El Salvador last week. The case revolves around the deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was sent back to his home country on March 15, despite an existing court order allowing him to remain in the United States. The judge’s ruling, issued early Sunday, called the deportation a “grievous error” that “shocks the conscience” and criticized the Trump administration for its handling of the case, which ultimately led to Garcia’s deportation to one of the most dangerous prisons in the world.
Judge Xinis, an Obama appointee, issued her order on Friday and followed it up with a detailed 22-page explanation on Sunday. Her ruling not only demanded that the administration return Garcia to the United States by 11:59 p.m. on Monday, but also rejected the Justice Department’s request to suspend her order while an appeals court reviewed the case. The legal dispute stems from the administration’s handling of the deportation, which the judge found to be both illegal and dangerous, as Garcia was sent to a notorious Salvadoran prison known for its association with violent gangs, including MS-13.
The Details of the Deportation: A Grievous Error
Garcia was initially allowed to remain in the United States under a prior court order, as he was contesting his deportation. However, despite this, the Trump administration proceeded with his deportation, sending him back to El Salvador on March 15, 2025. In her ruling, Judge Xinis sharply criticized the actions of the administration, noting that U.S. officials had acknowledged the deportation was a “grievous error.” She described the move as a violation of due process, saying it “shocks the conscience,” as Garcia had been deported despite a direct order from the court allowing him to stay.
The judge was especially critical of the administration’s failure to comply with the court’s order, and she highlighted the dangerous situation Garcia faced after being sent to one of the most notorious prisons in the Western Hemisphere, a facility known for housing members of violent criminal organizations, including MS-13. “As defendants acknowledge, they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador — let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere,” Xinis wrote in her decision. She went on to explain that the administration’s failure to follow proper legal procedures had resulted in an individual being placed in immediate danger, a fact that could not be ignored.
The Administration’s Defense: MS-13 Membership and Ongoing Legal Issues
Despite the ruling, the Trump administration has continued to defend the deportation of Garcia, even after admitting that the deportation was a mistake. On Sunday, Attorney General Pam Bondi appeared on Fox News and reiterated that Garcia was a known gang member, citing testimony from immigration agents. She emphasized that Garcia was linked to MS-13, a gang the U.S. State Department has designated a terrorist organization, and argued that his deportation was justified based on this alleged affiliation.
Bondi also announced that the Justice Department attorney who had initially handled the case, Erez Reuveni, had been suspended for mishandling the case. Reuveni, who was the acting deputy director of the Department of Justice’s immigration litigation division, was sidelined for not following the department’s directive to defend the administration’s position more forcefully. Reports from the New York Times indicated that Reuveni had expressed frustration with how the case had been handled by the administration, even admitting in court that the deportation had been an error. Bondi’s statement underscored the administration’s resolve to continue defending the deportation, despite the judge’s ruling.
“At my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States,” Bondi said. “Any attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences.” This strong stance on the part of the Trump administration reflects its continued commitment to the aggressive enforcement of immigration laws, particularly when it comes to deporting individuals with alleged ties to dangerous criminal organizations like MS-13.
The Appeals Process: A Constitutional Battle
The legal battle over Garcia’s deportation is far from over. The Justice Department has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to temporarily suspend Judge Xinis’ order, arguing that the judge’s ruling improperly interferes with executive power and that a federal court cannot compel the U.S. government to take specific actions in relation to foreign sovereign nations. Government lawyers have argued that a judicial order forcing the Executive branch to engage with a foreign power in a particular way is “constitutionally intolerable.”
This appeal raises significant constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the extent to which the judiciary can intervene in foreign policy matters, particularly when it involves deportation and interactions with foreign governments. In its filing, the Justice Department suggested that a federal court cannot dictate the actions of the executive branch, especially when it comes to enforcing immigration laws and making decisions about deportation. As of Sunday afternoon, the appeals court had asked Abrego Garcia’s legal team to respond to the government’s request, with the court likely to make a decision soon on whether to temporarily suspend Judge Xinis’s order.
The MS-13 Issue: Contradictions in the Government’s Position
The administration’s argument centers around the claim that Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang, but Judge Xinis’ ruling casts doubt on this assertion. While she acknowledged that the Trump administration had labeled Garcia as a gang member, she also pointed out that there were contradictory statements in the case. Specifically, Xinis noted that although the administration claimed Garcia was part of MS-13, it also recognized that Garcia could face persecution in El Salvador from rival gangs—two claims that don’t align with each other.
If Garcia was not truly a member of MS-13, Judge Xinis suggested, then it is unclear why he would be at risk from other gangs in El Salvador. This contradiction in the administration’s position has raised questions about the accuracy of the deportation and whether the government had all the facts straight when it decided to send Garcia back to El Salvador. Furthermore, the administration’s argument that MS-13’s designation as a terrorist organization gives it special legal status complicates matters, as it suggests that the court may have limited authority to intervene in cases involving individuals tied to such groups.
Political Implications: The Battle Over Immigration Policy
This case is emblematic of the broader political and legal battles surrounding immigration policy in the United States. The Trump administration has been aggressive in its efforts to deport individuals with alleged ties to gangs like MS-13, using national security arguments to justify its actions. However, the administration’s handling of Garcia’s case raises serious concerns about the balance between enforcing immigration laws and protecting individuals’ rights to due process. The judge’s order, and the subsequent legal actions, have reignited the national debate about the role of the judiciary in overseeing executive actions, particularly when it comes to sensitive immigration issues.
This case also highlights the ongoing tension between the administration’s hardline approach to immigration and the concerns raised by civil rights groups, immigrant advocates, and even some legal experts. While the Trump administration argues that its policies are necessary for protecting national security and public safety, opponents of its immigration strategy contend that such actions often result in violations of due process, as well as the potential for individuals to be sent back to dangerous and life-threatening situations.
What Comes Next?
The case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia remains a pivotal one in the broader debate over U.S. immigration policy. Whether or not the Trump administration is forced to comply with Judge Xinis’ ruling and return Garcia to the United States will depend on the outcome of the ongoing legal proceedings. If the appeals court upholds Xinis’ order, it would set a significant precedent regarding the authority of the judiciary over executive actions in immigration cases.
As the legal battle unfolds, the case will likely continue to draw attention from both sides of the political spectrum. Immigration advocates will continue to highlight the risks posed to individuals in situations like Garcia’s, while those in favor of more stringent immigration enforcement will argue that the government’s actions are necessary to protect public safety.
Regardless of the outcome, this case underscores the complex and often contentious nature of U.S. immigration policy, and it serves as a reminder of the ongoing legal and political challenges involved in balancing security concerns with human rights and due process. How the courts address this case may have far-reaching implications for future deportation decisions and the role of the judiciary in overseeing executive authority.
