On Thursday evening, a unanimous Supreme Court left in place an order by the United States District Court in Maryland directing the government to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States. See opinion here.
On March 15, 2025, the government deported Abrego Garcia—despite having been granted protection by an immigration judge in 2019 that should have prevented him from being deported to El Salvador—from the United States to El Salvador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism and Confinement (CECOT). Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, had been lawfully living and working in Maryland with his wife and their three special needs children (all U.S. citizens). Following litigation in the United Staates District Court in Maryland, the government confessed that Abrego Garcia’s deportation to a Salvadoran mega-prison was an “administrative error.” On April 4, 2025, as reported here, the United States District Court in Maryland entered an order directing the Government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7.” In a lengthy order issued on April 7 and available here, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the government's motion for a stay of the district court's order.
On the morning of April 7, 2025, the government filed an application to vacate the District Court’s order. Chief Justice Robert’s administratively stayed the case and referred the application to the full court. A unanimous court granted in part and denied in part the government’s application:
Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE is vacated.
Justice Sotomayor issued a separate statement, joined by Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, respecting the disposition of the government’s application. That statement provides, in part:
The United States Government arrested Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a “terrorism confinement center” in El Salvador, where he has been detained for 26 days and counting. To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Government remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019 order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future persecution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] authorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect him.” The Government has not challenged the validity of that order
Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. That view refutes itself.
(citations omitted). The Supreme Court briefing is available on the Court’s docket here.