Filed Date: March 24, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On March 15, 2025, as reported by several news outlets, the second Trump administration deported almost 300 noncitizens—mostly Venezuelan nationals and some Salvadoran nationals—to El Salvador without going through any legal process in front of an immigration judge. Upon arrival, they were sent to the country’s mega-prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center or CECOT.
This lawsuit challenged the deportation of one of the Salvadoran nationals, who had actually won protection from removal several years before. (To see the Clearinghouse's collection of legal challenges to actions by the second Trump Administration, including related to immigration, click here.)
March 24, 2025: Complaint and TRO Motion Filed
This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on March 24, 2025, by Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, and his wife and minor child, both United States citizens. In 2019, Abrego Garcia had won protection from removal from an immigration judge; he'd received a form of relief called withholding of removal to El Salvador. In the 2025 lawsuit, the plaintiffs were represented by a law firm specializing in immigration law, Murray Osorio (and later by the lawfirm Quinn Emmanuel). Their complaint named as defendants the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the agency heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the ICE Baltimore Field Office Director, the U.S. Attorney General, and the U.S. Secretary of State. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador without any legal process and against the immigration judge's 2019 order, violating the Withholding of Removal Statute, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (Procedural and Substantive), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and costs and attorneys' fees.
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on March 24. The case was assigned to District Judge Paula Xinis. News coverage reported that the administration acknowledged that Abrego-Garcia's deportation was an "administrative error" and claimed there was little the administration could do to get him back to the U.S.
April 4, 2025: District Court Granted Preliminary Injunction
The court heard the plaintiffs' TRO motion (which was construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction) on April 4, 2025. Judge Xinis granted the motion that same day, stating in her written order that "issuance of a preliminary injunction without further delay is necessary to restore [the plaintiff who was deported] to the status quo and to avoid ongoing irreparable harm resulting from [his] unlawful removal." The court ordered the government to facilitate and effectuate the plaintiff's return to the U.S. by April 7, 2025 at 11:59 p.m.
Based on his conduct at the hearing, the DOJ's lawyer—who had been promoted to acting deputy director of DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation just two weeks earlier—was put on indefinite leave on April 5. He had conceded in court that the plaintiff's deportation should never have taken place, and said he would urge his client to take steps to bring Abrego Garcia back. According to news reports, he was suspended for failing to "follow a directive from your superiors." Also, in a statement to The New York Times on April 5, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote, "[a]t my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States" and "[a]ny attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences."
Government Appeal
Within hours, the government appealed the district court's April 4 preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the next day requested an immediate stay of the preliminary injunction from the district court (denied on April 6) and from the Fourth Circuit. On April 7, a Fourth Circuit panel unanimously denied the stay, stating, "[t]he United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable."
The same day, April 7, the government filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the preliminary injunction entered by District Judge Xinis and requested an immediate administrative stay. The application was docketed as 24A949. Chief Justice Roberts granted the administrative stay, and referred the application to the full Supreme Court; this paused the district court's order to return the plaintiff to the U.S. by April 7, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. Then on April 10, 2025, the Court partially granted the application and partially denied it, stating:
Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective.
The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. 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 intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.
The case was remanded to the District Court. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson, issued a separate statement. She wrote that she "would have declined to intervene in this litigation and denied the application in full" but "agree[s] with the Court’s order that the proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador."
Both the plaintiff and the government described the Supreme Court's decision as a victory. As reported in news coverage, a DOJ spokesperson said:
As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs . . . 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.
Remand: Amended Preliminary Injunction Order
On remand, on April 10, 2025, District Judge Xinis amended her earlier preliminary injunction. The amended order directed the defendants to take all available steps to facilitate the plaintiff's return to the U.S. as soon as possible. She also required the government to file a supplemental declaration by the next day, April 11, at 9:30 a.m. ET. A status conference was set to follow.
On April 11, 2025, the government filed a motion requesting that the district court modify its order to allow them "a reasonable period of time to evaluate the Supreme Court’s order." They referred to the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs--noted in the Supreme Court's order--and continued, "that deference requires that the Executive be given a meaningful opportunity to review the Supreme Court’s decision before it is ordered to report what steps it will take in response to that decision."
Rather than accept the defendants' proposed modifications--which would give them until April 15 at 5 p.m. to submit their supplemental declaration and would push the hearing to April 16--District Judge Xinis extended the filing deadline by a couple hours, to April 11 at 11:30 a.m. Shortly after, the government responded that they "are not in a position where they 'can' share any information requested by the Court" and that "[f]oreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review." Instead, they requested and "required" the opportunity to brief what it means to "facilitate" or "effectuate" the plaintiff's return (since his is in the custody of a foreign sovereign) prior to being subject to any compliance deadlines.
The status conference was held on April 11 (as originally scheduled), and within hours, District Judge Xinis issued an order finding that the defendants failed to comply with the court's order (at docket no. 51). She stated, "beginning on April 12, 2025, and continuing each day thereafter until further order of the Court, Defendants shall file daily, on or before 5:00 PM ET, a declaration." Additionally, a follow-up hearing was scheduled for April 15 at 4 p.m.
On Saturday, April 12, the government reported to the district court that the plaintiff was "alive and secure" in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador and that he is "detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador." They did not mention steps to facilitate his return to the U.S. (Reporting on other government communications regarding this case--including by President Trump--is included here.) The status report the following day, on April 13, stated there was no update.
April 14, 2025: El Salvador's President Bukele and President Trump Met at the White House
El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele met with President Trump and cabinet members at the White House on Monday, April 14. During that meeting, President Trump and his team said it was up to the Salvadoran government to decide whether to return the plaintiff to the U.S., and the Salvadoran president responded that he would not do that. (Further coverage of the meeting was reported here.) After this meeting, the government's daily status report filed with the court stated, "in response to a question regarding Abrego Garcia, President Bukele said, 'I hope you're not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous.'" They also included a link to a video of the meeting.
April 15, 2025: District Judge Ordered Expedited Discovery
The next day, on April 15, a status conference was held before District Judge Xinis. Afterward, she issued a written order which stated that she had previously ordered "no more than what the Supreme Court endorsed: that Defendants 'take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.'" After defining the word "facilitate" and disagreeing with the government's narrow view (that "facilitate" is limited to "taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here"), she stated, "the record reflects that Defendants have done nothing at all."
As a result, her written order also granted the plaintiffs' motion for relief in the form of expedited discovery. The purpose is to "ascertain what, if anything, the Defendants have done 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'" including "what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return." The plaintiffs are required to send their discovery requests--including interrogatories and requests for production of documents--by April 16, with the government to respond by April 21. The plaintiffs may also depose four specific government employees--with DHS, ICE, and the State Department, who have filed declarations and status reports in this case--by April 23. Additional discovery, such as two more depositions, is subject to further briefing.
April 16, 2025: Second Appeal to the Fourth Circuit
The next day (April 16), the government appealed District Judge Xinis's amended preliminary injunction order, and sought a stay in the district court and in the Court of Appeals of both the injunction and the discovery order.
The government labeled the discovery order a "fishing expedition, captained by plaintiffs armed with an open-ended mandate." They also argued that the district court has "inserted itself into the foreign policy of the United States and has tried to dictate it from the bench," now claiming that the plaintiff is "a member of a foreign terrorist organization (MS-13), who no longer has any right to withholding of removal in the first place."
Both Judge Xinis and the Court of Appeals (in an opinion by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson) denied a stay on April 17:
While we fully respect the Executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision . . . The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.
The Executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport, but with powers come restraints. If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” would lose its meaning.
The opinion mentioned the government's prior concession that the plaintiff was "mistakenly" deported, and expressed concern that now "the [executive and judicial] branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both."
April 17, 2025: Maryland Senator Met with Plaintiff in El Salvador
On the same day (April 17), it was reported that Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen met with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia at a hotel in El Salvador, after the Senator was denied entry to the prison where the plaintiff was detained. After the meeting, El Salvador's President posted on social media "now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody."
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Lacie Melasi (3/31/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/parties/abrego-garcia-v-noem/
Anderson, K. McKenzie (Maryland)
Cooper, Jonathan Gordon (Maryland)
Blakeley, John William (Virginia)
Director, Erez R. (Virginia)
Chemerinsky, Erwin (Virginia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/abrego-garcia-v-noem/
Last updated April 20, 2025, 2:01 p.m.
State / Territory: Maryland
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Immigration Enforcement)
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 24, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A citizen of El Salvador—who in 2019 won an order from an immigration judge granting him a form of relief called withholding of removal to El Salvador, yet was deported to El Salvador in 2025 without any legal process—and his U.S. citizen wife and minor child.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Deparment of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Justice (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of State (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Immigration/Border: