Abrego Garcia and the Fight for Due Process

Summary of the Case

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident with protected status against deportation to El Salvador, has become a focal point in the national conversation surrounding immigration, due process and government accountability (Moodee Lockman 2025). Despite having lived in the U.S. for approximately 14 years and possessing a legal basis to remain, Abrego Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March 2025 due to what the U.S. government has acknowledged as an “administrative error” (Parloff 2025). This error occurred even though in 2019 an immigration judge had granted him “withholding of removal,” recognizing the danger he would face if returned to his native country (Spencer 2025). He also had a work permit, was employed as a sheet metal apprentice and was a member of a labor union (Sherer and Costa 2025).

The wrongful deportation of Abrego Garcia sparked immediate concern and outrage among civil rights advocates and lawmakers (Finley 2025). His case highlights the profound impact a single governmental mistake can have on an individual’s life, separating him from his family, his established life, his work as a sheet metal apprentice and his community in the United States (Sherer and Costa 2025). The situation prompted legal action and soon reached the U.S. Supreme Court (Noem v. Abrego Garcia 2025), underscoring the gravity of the error and the urgent questions it raises about the safeguards in place to protect individuals with legal standing from wrongful removal.

The legal battle to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. has been complex. While a U.S. District Court judge ordered the government to take steps to facilitate his return (Lawfare 2025), the Trump administration argued a lack of authority to extract him from a foreign nation’s custody. The Supreme Court upheld the order to “facilitate” his release but also suggested the lower court clarify the directive regarding his return, acknowledging the complexities of international relations and the “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs” (Noem v. Abrego Garcia 2025). Adding another layer of complication, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele has indicated he will not return Abrego Garcia (Finley 2025).

Beyond the administrative error, the U.S. government has also alleged that Abrego Garcia has ties to the MS-13 gang, a claim vehemently denied by his legal team, who point to his lack of a criminal record and suggest the allegations are based on flimsy evidence (Spencer 2025). This accusation further complicates his case and raises questions about the justification for his initial detention and subsequent deportation, particularly in light of his protected status (Spencer 2025). The situation underscores critical concerns about due process, the rights of immigrants and the accountability of the government when such significant errors occur, leaving many to consider the broader implications for all people residing in the U.S. and their reliance on the integrity of governmental processes (Reichlin-Melnick 2025).

Key Aspects of the Case:

• Unlawful Deportation: U.S. government agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Department of Homeland Security, admitted that Abrego Garcia’s deportation occurred due to an “administrative error” and was unlawful because it violated the existing withholding order (Moodee Lockman 2025; Noem v. Abrego Garcia 2025; Alonso-Yoder and Valdez 2025).
• Government Allegations: The government has alleged that Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang and involved in terrorism or human trafficking. His lawyers strongly deny these claims, noting he has no criminal record. They suggest the gang allegations are based on flimsy evidence, including his clothing at the time of a 2019 arrest for loitering while seeking day labor. An immigration judge in 2019 found his testimony regarding fear of persecution in El Salvador credible (Aleman and Brown 2025; Noem v. Abrego Garcia 2025).
• Legal Challenges and Court Orders: Abrego Garcia sued the administration following his deportation. A U.S. District Court judge ordered the government to facilitate his return to the U.S.(Moodee Lockman 2025; Alonso-Yoder and Valdez 2025). The Supreme Court subsequently affirmed the unlawfulness of his removal and upheld the lower court’s order, requiring the government to facilitate his release from custody in El Salvador and treat his case as if the improper removal had not happened (Moodee Lockman 2025; Noem v. Abrego Garcia 2025; Alonso-Yoder and Valdez 2025; Spencer 2025).
• Due Process Concerns: The case has raised significant concerns about due process rights for immigrants, regardless of status. Critics, including Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argue the government acted without a legal basis and has disregarded due process. Legal experts and advocates argue that the case highlights potential abuses of power and threatens the legal protections of all U.S. residents (Aleman and Brown 2025; Alonso-Yoder and Valdez 2025; Spencer 2025).
• Political Response: Democratic lawmakers visited Abrego Garcia in El Salvador (where he was eventually moved to a lower-security facility) to investigate and advocate for his return, criticizing the administration for ignoring court orders (Aleman and Brown 2025; Moodee Lockman 2025). The administration has defended the deportation based on its allegations against him but has faced difficulty complying with the court order to facilitate his return from foreign custody (Moodee Lockman 2025; Alonso-Yoder and Valdez 2025).

The situation highlights tensions between executive branch actions in immigration enforcement, judicial orders and the fundamental right to due process (Alonso-Yoder and Valdez 2025; Spencer 2025).

Optional: Have students read through a timeline of the case. The Washington Post, The Baltimore Banner, and ABC News all provide timelines.