A federal judge has ordered the Trump Administration to submit daily updates on its efforts to reclaim Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador last month. This decision follows a Supreme Court ruling stating that the Administration must “facilitate” his return.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued this unusual order, reflecting growing frustrations within the judiciary over what many legal experts perceive as a consistent disregard from the White House, raising concerns about a potential constitutional crisis.
Judge Xinis made this ruling during a tense hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland, where a Department of Justice lawyer was unable to provide basic information about Abrego García’s current whereabouts. “I am asking a very simple question: Where is he?” the judge asked, as reported by CNN. She later voiced her alarm, stating, “There is no evidence today as to where he is. That is extremely troubling.”
The judge has required an official with direct knowledge to submit a sworn statement each day, detailing Abrego García’s location, custody status, and any measures taken to assist in his return. “Even if the answer is that the government has no information, I want that on the record,” she stressed, according to CNN.
Read More: Experiences of Venezuelans Deported to El Salvador
This case has surfaced as a crucial point in a broader conflict involving executive power, immigration enforcement, and judicial autonomy. Last week, Judge Xinis ordered that Abrego García be returned by midnight on Monday, but officials from the Trump Administration claimed they lacked the authority to retrieve someone held by a foreign nation. The Supreme Court intervened on Thursday, issuing a unanimous ruling that the Administration must “facilitate” his return, though it stopped short of mandating the government to “effectuate” his return as Judge Xinis had requested. This distinction plays a significant role in the Administration’s defense.
At a press briefing on Friday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reiterated that it is the Administration’s responsibility to facilitate the return, not to effectuate it. This raises concerns about how far the Administration is willing to go to secure Abrego García’s return and how swiftly they will begin negotiations. “We greatly appreciate President Bukele and El Salvador’s cooperation and the repatriation of Salvadoran gang members who the previous Administration allowed to infiltrate our country,” Leavitt stated. Bukele is anticipated to visit the White House on Monday.
However, legal experts contend that the Administration’s ongoing hesitance to fully comply with court orders reflects a more significant decline in constitutional norms. While the Supreme Court’s ruling was a procedural win for Abrego García’s legal team, it still left substantial room for executive discretion, asserting that any further judicial directives must respect the deference owed to the Executive Branch in foreign relations matters. The Trump Administration has used this language to argue that judges cannot compel the President to negotiate with a foreign government.
Nonetheless, several lower courts have dismissed the Administration’s arguments. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that federal courts have jurisdiction over the case, and Judge Xinis has been clear in condemning the government’s actions. “The act of sending Abrego García to El Salvador was entirely illegal from the moment it occurred,” she remarked in a recent order.
Kilmar Abrego García, 29, was deported on March 15, despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that barred his removal to El Salvador due to credible threats from gangs against his family’s pupusa business. The government later admitted that his deportation was an “administrative error,” yet it has claimed it cannot be compelled to bring him back—an assertion dismissed by the Supreme Court’s liberal justices as both factually incorrect and legally dangerous.
In a separate opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and two colleagues cautioned that the Administration’s position suggests it could deport and imprison “any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, as long as it does so before a court can intervene.”
The situation is further complicated by government allegations—made without evidence or formal charges—that Abrego García is linked to the MS-13 gang. An immigration judge who blocked his removal in 2019 found no credible evidence supporting such claims, and his attorneys assert that he has no criminal history and was pursuing a journeyman license in Maryland. “The government has made no effort to demonstrate that Abrego García is, in fact, a member of any gang,” U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker emphasized.
The Administration’s actions in this case have raised alarms among legal scholars, who view them as part of a troubling trend. In several notable instances, the Trump Administration has openly resisted or delayed compliance with court orders. “The checks and balances are gone,” remarked Kim Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and a former assistant U.S. attorney, in a statement to TIME last month.
