Chief Justice Roberts pauses deadline for return of Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador
In a dramatic turn of events unfolding late Monday night, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily paused a court-imposed midnight deadline requiring the Trump administration to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man mistakenly deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The order, which followed an emergency appeal from the Department of Justice, halts enforcement of a lower court’s directive amid growing concerns over the administration’s handling of immigration cases and judicial authority.
The Justice Department had sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, arguing that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis overstepped her bounds when she ordered the U.S. government to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return by midnight Monday. The administration contended that the federal government no longer had custody of Abrego Garcia and lacked the means to retrieve him from El Salvador, despite acknowledging that his deportation was a mistake.
Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Salvadoran national, was deported earlier this year despite a prior ruling from an immigration judge who determined that he would likely face persecution by gangs in his home country. That decision, according to immigration law, should have protected him from removal under the principle of non-refoulement — the international legal norm prohibiting the deportation of individuals to countries where they are likely to be tortured, persecuted, or killed.
Instead, he was put on a plane and sent to El Salvador, where he was promptly detained in a prison notorious for housing violent gang members, including those affiliated with MS-13. According to his attorneys, Abrego Garcia had never been charged with a crime in either the United States or El Salvador, and no evidence supports government claims that he was affiliated with MS-13.
Judge Xinis condemned the deportation as “wholly lawless,” arguing in her opinion that the arrest and deportation appeared to be based on “vague, uncorroborated” allegations. She ordered his immediate return, sparking a high-level legal battle between the judiciary and the executive branch.
The Department of Justice’s appeal, directed to Chief Justice Roberts due to his jurisdiction over cases arising from Maryland, insisted that the lower court’s order was legally unsustainable. Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote in his filing that the injunction was just one of “a deluge of unlawful injunctions” that, in his view, have been used to obstruct President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.
“The district court’s injunction — which requires Abrego Garcia’s release from the custody of a foreign sovereign and return to the United States by midnight on Monday — is patently unlawful,” Sauer argued. The filing claimed that Judge Xinis was demanding actions that the U.S. government had no legal or practical ability to carry out, particularly as Abrego Garcia was no longer under U.S. control.
The administration’s legal team further argued that the executive branch could not be compelled to retrieve a person from a foreign government’s custody, especially when no bilateral agreement or extradition basis existed.
However, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, rejected the Justice Department’s request for a stay earlier Monday. In a sharply worded opinion, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson wrote, “There is no question that the government screwed up here,” suggesting that the administration’s procedural failures had directly led to the unlawful deportation.
The ruling underscored a broader concern about unchecked executive authority in immigration matters. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia argued that the government’s actions represented a grave violation of the Constitution and international law.
“The Executive branch may not seize individuals from the streets, deposit them in foreign prisons in violation of court orders, and then invoke the separation of powers to insulate its unlawful actions from judicial scrutiny,” his lawyers wrote in a response filed shortly after Chief Justice Roberts issued the stay.
Their statement further emphasized that the courts must retain the power to hold the executive accountable when its actions violate the law and basic human rights. The case has become emblematic of wider tensions between the Trump administration and the judiciary, particularly on matters of immigration, where executive decisions have increasingly tested legal boundaries.
This case is only one in a series of legal challenges the Trump administration is facing over its aggressive immigration policies. In a related matter, the administration is also asking the Supreme Court to authorize deportations of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador under an obscure 18th-century wartime law. That policy, like the Abrego Garcia case, has drawn significant scrutiny from human rights advocates and legal scholars alike.
Critics argue that these deportations not only violate domestic immigration law but also erode America’s commitments to international protections for asylum seekers and refugees. They fear that without strong judicial oversight, vulnerable individuals may be wrongfully expelled to countries where they face serious harm or even death.
In addition to the legal and political fallout, the case has cast a spotlight on the humanitarian consequences of deportation policies. El Salvador’s prison system, particularly the facilities designated for gang suspects, has long been criticized by international watchdogs for overcrowding, abuse, and extrajudicial violence.
Placing a non-criminal individual like Abrego Garcia into such a volatile environment — especially in the absence of evidence linking him to any gang activity — raises serious ethical and legal questions. His legal team and advocates are now racing against time not only to secure his return but to ensure his safety while detained.
Chief Justice Roberts’ temporary stay buys the government time — but it is not a final ruling. The full Supreme Court could take up the case to determine whether Judge Xinis had the authority to compel the U.S. government to reverse a deportation it claims it cannot undo. Alternatively, the pause may lead to further negotiations or legal proceedings in lower courts.
For now, the life of Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains in limbo, held in a Salvadoran prison under uncertain conditions, as the highest court in the United States deliberates the balance between judicial authority and executive power — and the human cost that lies in between.
