Federal Appeals Court Ruling
On Thursday, a unanimous decision from a federal appeals court dismissed an appeal made by the Trump Administration. This ruling came in response to a previous order from a district court, which required officials to give sworn testimony about their failure to comply with a prior Supreme Court-backed mandate. This mandate instructed the Administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an individual from El Salvador who had been living in Maryland with his U.S. citizen spouse and children. The Administration had admitted to mistakenly deporting him to a dangerous prison in El Salvador, based on unverified claims of gang ties.
Judge’s Strong Criticism
Chief Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, an 80-year-old conservative appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1983 and previously considered for a Supreme Court nomination by President George W. Bush, issued a sharp critique in his opinion from the Fourth Circuit. He described the Trump Administration’s refusal to comply as “shocking” and stressed the importance of adhering to the rule of law, warning that this scenario could escalate into a serious crisis.
You can find the full opinion from Judge Wilkinson below.
Court’s Refusal of Government’s Requests
After assessing the government’s appeal, the court turned down both the request for an emergency stay and the writ of mandamus. The relief sought by the government was considered unusual and untimely. While acknowledging the Executive’s vigorous assertion of its Article II powers, the court expressed its intent not to interfere with the diligent efforts of a district judge working to enforce the Supreme Court’s recent ruling.
Core Issues at Play
At times, pinpointing the main issue can be challenging. However, in this case, the situation is quite clear. The government claims the right to detain U.S. residents in foreign prisons without the due process that our Constitution guarantees. Additionally, it contends that because it has released custody, there is nothing further that can be done.
This situation should raise alarms not only within the judiciary but also for the essential liberty that many Americans hold dear, including those who may not frequently interact with the legal system.
The government alleges that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist linked to MS-13. Regardless of the truth of these claims, it remains vital that he is granted due process. If the government is confident in its allegations, it should trust that it can successfully argue for the termination of the withholding of removal order. Under 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f), the government is obligated to prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the individual no longer qualifies for withholding of removal. Moreover, the government has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported. So, why not correct this error?
Supreme Court Guidance
The Supreme Court’s ruling should always guide our actions. This ruling rightfully requires that lower federal courts exhibit “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” In Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949, slip op. at 2 (U.S. Apr. 10, 2025); see also United States v. Curtiss-Wright Exp. Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 319 (1936). Such respect enables sensitive diplomatic discussions to remain confidential and recognizes that the “facilitation” of Abrego Garcia’s return provides the Executive Branch with options in its execution that the courts should genuinely respect, as highlighted in the Supreme Court’s ruling. This decision strikes a balance, ensuring that lower courts do not overlook Article II.
However, the Supreme Court’s ruling does not grant the government the authority to take no action. It explicitly requires the government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and ensure that his case is handled as if he had not been wrongfully deported. The term “facilitate” is an active verb, demanding concrete actions as clearly mandated by the Supreme Court. The government cannot limit this term to a narrow interpretation created by an administrative directive. The assertion that the government is only required to “remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia’s] return” misinterprets the Supreme Court’s order to facilitate his release from custody in El Salvador.
Misinterpretation of ‘Facilitation’
The concept of “facilitation” does not allow for the wrongful deportation of an individual to a country’s prisons, which the withholding order explicitly prohibits, nor does it give the government the right to ignore a court order. Allowing such actions would redefine “facilitation” as a means to endorse foreign detention rather than ensuring domestic return. This would undermine the rule of law and jeopardize the core values that Americans, regardless of their political affiliations, have long valued.
The government seems frustrated with the court’s decisions. It’s essential to clarify that while court rulings may be open to criticism, such criticism should not lead to active obstruction or defiance. Judicial decisions can occasionally stretch their limits and encroach on the prerogatives of other branches; however, courts operate with an understanding of their constraints while maintaining a commitment to the rule of law.
Respecting Government Branches
The “energy in the [E]xecutive” is a principle that deserves respect, as noted in FEDERALIST NO. 70 (1789) by Alexander Hamilton. This energy can invigorate government efforts and address long-standing imbalances. However, it can also create friction, as the Executive often focuses on results while the Judiciary emphasizes the processes that lead to those results. The Executive’s direction is frequently influenced by electoral mandates, whereas the Constitution entrusts the means to the Judiciary.
The Executive holds substantial power to prosecute and deport, but this authority comes with responsibility. If the Executive can deport without due process and disregard court orders today, what guarantees exist that it won’t deport U.S. citizens tomorrow and then deny responsibility for their return? What assurances are there against potential political misuse of this discretionary power? The risk, even if it has not yet materialized, remains persistent, and the Executive’s duty to ensure that laws are executed faithfully would lose its meaning.
Abrego Garcia’s Indefinite Limbo
Presently, both the United States and El Salvadorian governments deny any authority or responsibility to bring Abrego Garcia back. We are left to conclude that neither government is willing or capable of taking action. As a result, Abrego Garcia finds himself in a state of indefinite limbo, lacking any legal recourse.
The fundamental distinctions among government branches require mutual respect. The respect that the courts owe to the Executive should be reciprocated by the Executive’s respect for the judiciary. Unfortunately, recent developments have revealed a troubling trend, with calls for the impeachment of judges whose rulings the Executive finds unacceptable and suggestions to disregard court orders.
Lessons from History
In light of this situation, we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s example. He set aside his personal opinions to fulfill his duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v. Board of Education II, ordering schools to desegregate “with all deliberate speed.” President Eisenhower articulated his belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of the decisions of the Federal Courts.” He warned that failing to do so would lead to chaos.
Currently, a dangerous friction is developing between the branches of government, threatening to undermine both. This conflict is detrimental to all involved. The Judiciary risks losing its legitimacy, while the Executive faces increasing perceptions of lawlessness. Although the Executive may temporarily weaken the courts, history will ultimately highlight the tragic consequences of this discord, as the rule of law could become nothing more than a hollow phrase.
While this case can be perceived as a potential crisis, it also presents an opportunity. We hope that our colleagues in the Executive Branch recognize the importance of the rule of law to the American identity. This case offers them a chance to reaffirm that value and inspire the best in us before it becomes too late.
In conclusion, for the reasons outlined, we deny the requests for the stay pending appeal and writ of mandamus in this case. It is hereby ordered.
