Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation to CECOT, El Salvador’s infamous mega-prison, was on March 15th. That event sparked a major legal and political controversy. The U.S. government proceeded with the deportation. They disregarded Abrego Garcia’s protective status—order of withholding of removal—an immigration protection which should have shielded him from this very action. This incident raises questions about the adherence to legal protocols concerning immigration protections and the treatment of individuals with pending cases.
This case is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision issued on April 10. As a result, the court ordered that the U.S. government should ensure Abrego Garcia’s safe return to the United States. Yet, due to a series of contradictory actions from federal officials—law enforcement and immigration authorities—he was deported instead. This development has made headlines largely for its legal ramifications. It raises eyebrows due to claims that Abrego Garcia has ties to the MS-13 gang – an allegation that he and his defense attorney vehemently dispute.
The Legal Proceedings
Abrego Garcia’s legal troubles began in 2019. In reality, he had been arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents while seeking work as a day laborer outside a Home Depot store in Maryland. After his arrest, an immigration judge denied him bond. This decision stemmed from a federal carrier informant’s accusation that he participated in the MS-13 gang.
Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, stated, “He has never been convicted of any crime, gang-related or otherwise.” His lawyers have long maintained that the claim was false and a total of non-credible evidence.
Despite these assertions, Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed in 2019 that “two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court, ruled that (Abrego Garcia) was a member of MS-13.” This contradictory story point underscores the fraught relationship between immigration law, the criminal enforcement system, and personal autonomy.
Supreme Court Intervention
The Supreme Court’s intervention sprinkled a little more drama on this already significant case. On April 10, it ordered the U.S. government to ensure Abrego Garcia’s return. At the time, this ruling was viewed as a major victory for Abrego Garcia and his backers.
Stephen Miller, a prominent figure in immigration policy, remarked, “We won (the Supreme Court) case 9-0 and people like CNN are portraying it as a loss.” In making his argument, Faisal pointed out that the Supreme Court’s ruling further strengthened Abrego Garcia’s claim to protection under U.S. immigration law.
David Bier, an immigration policy expert, noted that “the government certainly could have sought to prove that (Abrego Garcia) was not eligible for any form of immigration relief, but it did not do so.” This troubling inaction has led some to question the U.S. government’s commitment to legal obligations to people with deportation orders.
Ongoing Controversies
Even though Abrego Garcia stays in CECOT, the legality of his deportation threatens to raise questions. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, an immigration advocate, pointed out that the U.S. government’s designation of MS-13 as a foreign terrorist organization does not automatically revoke Abrego Garcia’s protection from removal.
As Reichlin-Melnick argues, “for the US government to not have complied with the court’s order in Abrego Garcia’s case was a failure, plain and simple.” A federal judge has required the government to provide daily, real-time reports of his whereabouts. The judge is asking for details about what steps have been taken to secure his return to the U.S.
Abrego Garcia’s case first highlights the Kafkaesque details of immigration law. It further highlights the inhumane treatment that those who are ultimately wrongfully accused would endure. Even president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, has dived into the conversation. He has highlighted the broader ramifications of deporting people classified as terrorists.
