The story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a Maryland resident, father of three U.S. citizen children, and long-time community member—is deeply troubling and should be making you unbelievably uncomfortable. In minority communities, that is exactly what is happening. However, this case should be deeply troubling to every single person in this country. Indeed, the deportation is more than a story of misguided and flawed immigration enforecement. It has now become a pivotal constitutional battle over the limits of executive power, due process, and the meaning of citizenship itself.
On March 15, 2025, Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported to El Salvador—despite a standing 2019 immigration court order under the Convention Against Torture that explicitly barred his removal based on well-documented threats to his life in that country. It took all of three days to arrest and deport him to El Salvador. He is currently still imprisoned in a maximum-security Salvadoran prison, while the U.S. government refuses to bring him home—even after multiple federal court rulings ordering them to do so and, even more incredibly, an order from the United States Supreme Court requiring the government to facilitate his release from custody in El Salvador.
How It Happened
According to the New York Times, on March 12, 2025, after finishing a shift as a union apprentice, Kilmar Abrego Garcia picked up his son from his mother-in-law’s home in Maryland. While driving, he was stopped by a Department of Homeland Security agent. The agent claimed Abrego Garcia’s immigration status had changed—though he was given no details at the time. ICE waited until his wife arrived to collect their special needs child before taking him into custody. They later called her and said she had 10 minutes to retrieve their son or he would be turned over to child protective services. She barely made it on time.
From there, the situation escalated rapidly. Abrego Garcia was held in Baltimore, where he was interrogated about alleged gang ties based on previously rejected allegations. Just a quick reminder that this was already litigated when he had his immigration hearing. Despite his attorney’s repeated objections, he was transferred to a Texas detention center. Just three days later, on March 15, he was deported to El Salvador—in direct violation of the law and a binding court order. One of the most important facts to know about this case is that the Trump administration has now admitted that his removal was the result of an administrative error. Nevertheless, he was immediately imprisoned at El Salvador’s notorious CECOT mega-prison, a high-security facility for suspected gang members, where he remains to this day.
What the Law Says
In 2019, an immigration judge ruled that Abrego Garcia was eligible for withholding of removal under U.S. law, having established a credible fear of persecution or torture if returned to El Salvador. That order prohibited the government from deporting him and should have been the end of any fears he had about ever going back to El Salvador. The 2025 deportation completely violated that judicial protection. A federal court later confirmed this, ruling that ICE had illegally removed a protected individual. In April 2025, the court ordered the government to take “all available measures” to bring him back.
Rather than comply, the U.S. Department of Justice filed briefs arguing that the courts had no authority to compel the executive branch to retrieve someone once they had been deported—even if the deportation was illegal. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, allowing the lower court’s ruling to stand. Yet the administration has refused to act, asserting that the decision to repatriate someone—even a U.S. citizen—is purely discretionary.
The Administration’s Controversial Legal Position
Perhaps most alarming is the government’s central legal claim: that there is no meaningful constitutional distinction between a U.S. citizen and a non-citizen in this context.
The Department of Justice has effectively argued that even if a citizen were wrongfully deported, the courts would have no authority to order their return. In their view, the judiciary has no enforceable remedy once a person is physically outside the United States—even if that person was deported illegally, under false pretenses, or in violation of due process.
This argument carries three implications which for lack of a better term, are absolutely bonkers:
- Judicial orders protecting immigrants (and even citizens) from removal can be ignored with no consequence.
- Deportation becomes irreversible, even when a mistake has been made by the government.
- Citizenship itself becomes functionally meaningless, if the courts cannot enforce its protections.
Why YOU should care about this
Justice Sotomayor, by way of her statement in the Supreme Court order, encapsulates the issue clearly. “The Government’s argument… implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including US citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”
In case I have not been clear yet, let me remedy that now. This is a constitutional crisis. The government is openly defying a federal court’s order and asserting that it alone decides whether an illegally deported person may return. This view completely subtracts the oversight of the Courts and the possible legislative solutions that could be proposed by the legislative branch. Indeed, the administration’s stance subtracts the rule of law from the fairness equation. It treats deportation as an unreviewable act of sovereignty, rather than a process bound by judicial oversight and legal constraint. It signals that no one is safe from bureaucratic error—not even individuals protected by legal rulings. For immigrant communities, the chilling message is clear: a court victory may not be enough.
Oh and by the way, as of this writing, Kilmar Abrego Garcia Is Still in Prison!
Despite overwhelming evidence of legal error, Abrego Garcia remains incarcerated in El Salvador. He has not been charged with any crime there. His three children are growing up without their father. And the United States government continues to argue it has no obligation to fix its mistake.
This is more than a tragic removal—it is a constitutional inflection point. If the government can deport someone protected by law and ignore court orders to undo that act, then no immigration status is safe and no court ruling is secure. Maybe it’s time to really start paying attention?