A federal appeals court has denied the government’s emergency request to pause a lower court order that directed immigration authorities to assist in returning a man deported to El Salvador despite a legal ruling that prohibited his removal.
The decision, issued April 17 by the Baltimore-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, is the latest development in the case of Abrego Garcia v. Noem. The case concerns Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national and Maryland resident, who was deported on March 15, 2025, even though an immigration judge had granted him protection from removal in 2019. That protection, called withholding of removal, bars the government from deporting someone to a country where they would likely face torture or persecution.
According to court filings, the administration justified Abrego Garcia’s deportation on public safety grounds, citing alleged ties to the gang MS-13. Government attorneys argued that his removal was necessary to protect national security and maintain immigration enforcement priorities. However, in their rulings, neither the Supreme Court nor the Fourth Circuit addressed or evaluated the validity of those public safety claims. Instead, both courts focused on whether the removal complied with applicable legal procedures and judicial orders.
According to publicly available records, Abrego Garcia has lived in the United States since his teenage years. He resided in Maryland with his wife and their three children, all of whom are U.S. citizens. He is currently being held in a high-security detention facility in El Salvador known as CECOT.
The core legal issue is whether the federal government must take active steps to help reverse a deportation that occurred despite a court order—and whether failing to do so violates due process rights under U.S. law.
Earlier in the case, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued an order on April 4 requiring the Department of Homeland Security and related agencies to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States by April 7. The government appealed, seeking an emergency stay.
Before the appeals court ruled, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 10, the justices issued a partial ruling that upheld the requirement for the government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody and to resume handling his immigration case as though the deportation had not occurred. The Court also found that the district court’s use of the word “effectuate” might exceed judicial authority, and it sent the matter back to the lower court for clarification.
“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 Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion said.
The Court also distinguished between the two verbs at issue. It concluded that “facilitate” was consistent with judicial authority to enforce compliance with its rulings, whereas “effectuate”—meaning to carry out or cause something to happen—could raise concerns about courts directing foreign affairs. The Court remanded the order for further explanation of that term.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, filed a concurring opinion. They wrote that the government had not provided a legal justification for Abrego Garcia’s March arrest and removal. “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,” Sotomayor wrote.
In its April 17 opinion, the Fourth Circuit denied the government’s motion to stay the lower court’s order. The three-judge panel – Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Robert B. King, and Stephanie D. Thacker – noted that the government acknowledged Abrego Garcia was “wrongly or ‘mistakenly’ deported.”
Writing for the panel, Judge Wilkinson stated that the Supreme Court’s instruction to “facilitate” required the government to take active steps. “‘Facilitate’ is an active verb,” the opinion said. “It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.”
The court also rejected the government’s argument that it had met its obligations simply by removing domestic legal obstacles to Abrego Garcia’s return. “We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive,” the opinion continued.
According to the ruling, if the government seeks to terminate Abrego Garcia’s protection from removal, it must do so through a formal process in immigration court. Under federal regulation, the government bears the burden of proving that a person is no longer entitled to protection.
The appeals court concluded with a statement on the importance of reciprocal respect between branches of government: “The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the courts.”
The Fourth Circuit included this observation in response to arguments raised by the government that, once a person has been physically removed from the United States, courts lack authority to compel any further action. The panel expressed concern that accepting such a position could permit future administrations to disregard judicial rulings through unilateral deportation. It also cited recent public remarks by elected officials suggesting that judges could be ignored or impeached for issuing unfavorable decisions. Although the court did not reference specific individuals by name, the opinion warned that such rhetoric and legal positions, if accepted, could erode constitutional checks and balances.
The case now returns to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. Further proceedings are expected to address the Supreme Court’s guidance and to determine what steps the government has taken or will take to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.
About Author
Be First to Comment