Supreme Court Rules Wrongfully Deported Man Must Return To US
The Supreme Court on Thursday ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national living in Maryland, from an El Salvador prison.
Abrego Garcia, 29, was deported to the El Salvadoran mega-prison last month for being an alleged MS-13 gang member, however, his attorneys maintain he does not have any gang ties. Garcia’s wrongful deportation has triggered an onslaught of criticisms from both sides of the aisle. (RELATED: IRS, DHS Reach Game-Changing Agreement For Trump Immigration Agenda)
The Supreme Court sided with U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis who initially ordered federal officials to coordinate Garcia’s return back to Maryland in a Monday order, calling his deportation “wholly unlawful.”
Fox News reports:
“On March 15, 2025, the United States removed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Salvador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT),” the order states. “The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor said she “would have declined to intervene in this litigation and denied the application in full.”
“Nevertheless, I agree with the Court’s order that the proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the processes to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador,” Sotomayor wrote. “That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with ‘due process of law,’ including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings.”
The Justice Department responded to the order in a statement to Fox News in a statement.
“As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the President to conduct foreign affairs,” the statement says. “By directly noting the deference owed to the Executive Branch, this ruling once again illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the President’s authority to conduct foreign policy.”