What happens when a court orders the government to correct a mistake, but the government refuses? This question lies at the heart of the ongoing legal battle over Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite a court order protecting him from removal.
On April 17, 2025, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to block a lower court’s order requiring the U.S. government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. The court’s decision emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law and maintaining the balance of power among the branches of government.
Background of the Case
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Salvadoran national, had been living in Maryland with his U.S. citizen wife and child. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from deportation to El Salvador due to credible fears of persecution. Despite this, in March 2025, he was detained and deported to El Salvador, where he was imprisoned in the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a facility known for harsh conditions.
The deportation occurred in violation of a standing court order, which the government later acknowledged as an “administrative error.” Abrego Garcia’s legal team filed a lawsuit seeking his return, leading to a series of court orders directing the government to take action.
Legal Developments
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return. The DOJ appealed this order, arguing that the court lacked authority to compel the executive branch to act in matters involving foreign governments. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument, stating that the government’s position “shocks the conscience” and undermines the rule of law.
The court emphasized that allowing the government to ignore judicial orders without consequence would set a dangerous precedent, eroding public trust in the legal system.
Constitutional Implications
This case raises significant constitutional questions about the separation of powers and the enforcement of judicial decisions. The judiciary’s role is to interpret the law and ensure that the executive branch acts within legal boundaries. When the executive branch disregards court orders, it challenges the foundational principle of checks and balances that underpins the U.S. Constitution.
The situation also highlights the importance of due process rights. Abrego Garcia was deported without a hearing, despite having legal protection from removal. Such actions threaten the rights of individuals and the integrity of the legal system.
Ongoing Challenges
Despite the court’s ruling, the government has yet to take concrete steps to secure Abrego Garcia’s return. El Salvador’s government has refused to release him, and U.S. officials have argued that they cannot compel a foreign nation to act. However, the court has maintained that the U.S. government has a responsibility to rectify its own errors and uphold the law.
Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland traveled to El Salvador in an attempt to visit Abrego Garcia but was denied access. He continues to advocate for his constituent’s return and has called on the administration to comply with the court’s orders.
Conclusion
The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia underscores the critical importance of the rule of law and the constitutional balance of power. When the executive branch fails to comply with judicial orders, it not only affects the individuals involved but also poses a broader threat to democratic governance. As this legal battle continues, it serves as a reminder of the ongoing need to uphold constitutional principles and ensure that all branches of government are held accountable.