The Case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

By: Taariq Ahmed
Edited by: David Liu and Isabella Canales

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented migrant from El Salvador, has become a flashpoint in the immigration debate under the second Trump administration. This year, he was mistakenly deported to a detention center in El Salvador—a facility where human rights violations have been alleged, including by Abrego Garcia—[1] faced a separate criminal case accusing him of being a member of a criminal gang, and was threatened with deportation to countries like Uganda, and now Liberia. [2] The goal, according to the White House, is to make sure Garcia will “never go free” in the U.S. [3] Yet it is the chaotic and constantly dynamic nature of his story that is most striking. In his case, the Trump administration implemented an unorthodox and legally uncharted approach to deport an undocumented migrant. When it comes to Abrego Garcia, the government has constantly pursued new legal pathways for his deportation instead of following a single one.

Having first entered the United States from El Salvador illegally in 2011, in hopes of escaping from gang violence, Abrego Garcia has over the years settled down in Maryland, where he lives with his U.S.-citizen wife and children. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him withholding of removal, a legal protection for individuals who fear imminent threats in their home countries, because of gang activity. [4] This status is unlike asylum in many ways, including that it does not include a path to citizenship. [5] However, the ruling was originally intended to ensure Abrego Garcia could not be deported to El Salvador, where the judge deemed he would face serious threats. This is what fundamentally made his deportation legally problematic—it violated a form of relief he had been given years earlier.

On March 12, 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested Abrego Garcia in Maryland. Three days later, on March 15, he was deported to El Salvador and held in CECOT, a maximum-security terrorism-containment facility, in a move that ICE only later determined was a simple “administrative error.” [2] Without evidence, the Trump administration has alleged Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, a claim his attorneys have denied, citing his lack of a criminal record in either the U.S. or El Salvador. The administration also claimed that because Abrego Garcia was no longer in U.S. custody, his fate was up to the Salvadoran government, arguing instead that judicial authority is limited once deportations cross national borders, where diplomatic relations with El Salvador compel the president to preside over foreign policy. [6] This raised the question of whether the judicial branch can force the executive to undo a wrongful removal, especially when it was to another country, something the Supreme Court prompted discussion about with its ruling. The government acknowledged their mistake but they also claimed that nothing could be done to fix it, despite the fact that they were responsible for it happening in the first place.

On April 4, 2025, Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland Paula Xinis issued a temporary restraining order and instructed federal agencies to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of Abrego Garcia by April 7. [2] After originally pausing the order, the Supreme Court unanimously decided the next week, on April 10, that Abrego Garcia must be returned to the United States. The language in Xinis’ ruling was significant for the legal discussion of the case. The Supreme Court agreed that the government must “facilitate” his release, but pushed back on the word “effectuate,” which means to put into force or operation, ruling that the court may be overstepping its judicial authority by requiring the executive to complete the removal instead of merely taking steps to help it to happen. [2] The Trump administration claimed that this part of the ruling supported their argument that the judge was overreaching, further complicating the interpretation of the ruling. The courts decided that the deportation was legally flawed and required the government to address it, but the government argued the wording of the rulings implied they did not actually have to bring him back. 

Following a significant delay in release characterized by uncertainty around Abrego Garcia’s case, on June 6, he returned to the U.S. only to face criminal charges for allegedly smuggling undocumented migrants traveling inland from the Southern border. [2] On August 19, his attorneys formally accused the government of “vindictive and selective prosecution,” alleging that the criminal case was only brought in retaliation for the civil case he brought against his deportation. [7] The fact that the government only brought criminal charges against Abrego Garcia after he returned to the U.S. prompted his lawyers to question the motive: was it about enforcing the law or punishing him for his legal challenge?

Although he was released to his brother on August 22, he was instructed to report to the Baltimore ICE office on August 25, when he was taken into custody once again. [2] Essentially, Abrego Garcia had been offered a deal by the government that would have him plead guilty to smuggling, serve his time for the crime, and then be deported to Costa Rica, where the Central American nation promised he would live freely. However, he rejected this plan, and so the Trump administration responded by claiming that he would then be deported to Uganda. [8] Abrego Garcia’s team argues ICE has been using the threat of a second deportation, to yet another country where he faces potential human rights abuses, as coercion. [9] According to his lawyers, by turning up the pressure with deportation threats, the Trump administration was attempting to remove him before he could exercise all of his legal rights to challenge his deportation. [8] The Trump administration announced in November that it has everything in order to deport him to Liberia if a judge rules in their favor, but the next rulings in his case—and where he will ultimately end up—have not yet been determined. Every time the government didn’t get its desired outcome, it sought another method of deportation, illustrating how its approach repeatedly evolved while Abrego Garcia’s legal case remained the same.  

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia highlights the legal tensions at the intersection of the executive and judicial authority, civil and criminal law, and individual due process rights. Ultimately, his story underscores how the Trump administration employed unconventional legal arguments and avenues for deporting Garcia. 

Notes:

1. Gerstein, Josh, and Kyle Cheney. 2025. “Kilmar Abrego Garcia Describes ‘Severe Beatings’ and ‘Psychological Torture’ in Salvadoran Prison.” POLITICO. Politico. July 3, 2025. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/02/kilmar-abrego-garcia-salvadoran-prison-account-00438153.

2. Romero, Laura, Peter Charalambous, James Hill, Ely Brown, Armando Garcia, and Katherine Faulders. 2025. “Timeline: Wrongful Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.” ABC News. April 18, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-wrongful-deportation-kilmar-abrego-garcia-el-salvador/story?id=120803843.

3. Faguy, Ana. 2025. “Trump Administration Says Kilmar Ábrego García Will ‘Never Go Free’ on American Soil.” BBC, June 23, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx2ny7yl097o.

4. Camilo Montoya-Galvez. 2025. “Trump Administration Says Kilmar Abrego Garcia Has Received Sufficient Due Process, Asks Judge to Allow Deportation to Liberia.” Cbsnews.com. November 8, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-judge-deport-kilmar-abrego-garcia-liberia/.

5. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Guide to Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT (2022), PDF, 2022, https://portal.ice.gov/pdf/LOPPdf/AsylumWORCATGuide/Asylum_WOR_CAT-Guide-2022_ENGLISH_508_compliant.pdf.

6. Jouvenal, Justin, and Ann E Marimow. 2025. “Supreme Court Says Trump Officials Must ‘Facilitate’ Return of Wrongly Deported Man.” The Washington Post. April 10, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/10/supreme-court-kilmar-abrego-garcia-deportation-el-salvador/

7. McAvoy, Audrey. 2025. “Abrego Garcia’s Lawyers Ask a Judge to Dismiss Smuggling Charges.” AP News. August 20, 2025. https://apnews.com/article/abrego-garcia-release-deportation-trial-d56bcbe412d617cf042a76463ef4c799.

8. Roebuck, Jeremy, Maria Sacchetti, and Dana Munro. 2025. “Judge Temporarily Bars Kilmar Abrego García’s Deportation to Uganda.” The Washington Post. August 25, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/08/25/kilmar-abrego-garcia-detained/

9. Cole, Devan. 2025. “Trump Administration Might Deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda.” CNN. August 23, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/23/politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-uganda-deport.

Bibliography:

1. Romero, Laura, Peter Charalambous, James Hill, Ely Brown, Armando Garcia, and Katherine Faulders. 2025. “Timeline: Wrongful Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador.” ABC News. April 18, 2025. https://abcnews.go.com/US/timeline-wrongful-deportation-kilmar-abrego-garcia-el-salvador/story?id=120803843.

2. Roebuck, Jeremy, Maria Sacchetti, and Dana Munro. 2025. “Judge Temporarily Bars Kilmar Abrego García’s Deportation to Uganda.” The Washington Post. August 25, 2025. https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/08/25/kilmar-abrego-garcia-detained/

3. Supreme Court of the United States. 2025a. “KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT of HOMELAND SECURITY, et AL. V. KILM.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf.

4. Camilo Montoya-Galvez. 2025. “Trump Administration Says Kilmar Abrego Garcia Has Received Sufficient Due Process, Asks Judge to Allow Deportation to Liberia.” Cbsnews.com. November 8, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-administration-judge-deport-kilmar-abrego-garcia-liberia/.

5. Cole, Devan. 2025. “Trump Administration Might Deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda.” CNN. August 23, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/23/politics/kilmar-abrego-garcia-uganda-deport.