Federal judges deliver back-to-back rulings against Trump’s deportation efforts, ordering the return of individuals wrongfully sent to El Salvador despite ongoing asylum cases.
Key Insights
- A Maryland federal judge ordered the Trump administration to facilitate the return of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man deported to El Salvador, citing violations of a 2019 settlement agreement protecting young migrants with pending asylum cases
- This marks the second recent case where judges have ruled against the administration’s deportation practices, following a Supreme Court order for the release of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia
- The rulings highlight potential procedural flaws in President Trump’s aggressive deportation plan targeting up to 1 million people in his first year
- Judge Stephanie Gallagher specifically noted there was no evidence presented that the deported Venezuelan man posed any threat to public safety
Court Orders Return of Second Wrongfully Deported Migrant
In a significant blow to President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher has ordered the administration to seek the return of a 20-year-old Venezuelan man who was deported to El Salvador. The judge determined that his deportation violated a 2019 court settlement specifically designed to protect young migrants with pending asylum applications. The man, identified only as Cristian in court documents, was removed from the country despite having legal protections under this existing settlement agreement.
This ruling follows a similar case involving Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, another migrant wrongfully deported to El Salvador, whose return was ordered by the Supreme Court. Judge Paula Xinis is currently handling Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case and enforcing the order for his release, despite President Trump’s public claims that his administration lacks the power to bring the man back to the United States. Both cases highlight potential procedural irregularities in the implementation of the president’s aggressive deportation policies.
Legal Basis for the Court’s Decision
The court’s ruling centered on a class action lawsuit filed in July 2019 by immigrants who entered the United States as unaccompanied children. These plaintiffs successfully challenged what they described as unlawful modifications to asylum application procedures. Judge Gallagher had previously approved a settlement in this lawsuit that required the return of individuals like Cristian to the United States so they could properly process their asylum applications according to established legal procedures.
According to court documents, Cristian was deported after being convicted on drug charges and deemed subject to Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. The Justice Department argued that Judge Gallagher lacks jurisdiction to review Cristian’s deportation or compel his return. However, the judge firmly rejected this argument, emphasizing that the government must take “affirmative steps” to facilitate Cristian’s return to the United States in compliance with the previously established settlement agreement.
Administration’s Defense and Judge’s Response
Government lawyers attempted to justify Cristian’s deportation by arguing that the Alien Enemies Act was properly invoked due to perceived threats from the Tren de Aragua gang. This approach aligns with President Trump’s broader immigration strategy, which has emphasized public safety concerns as justification for accelerated deportations. The administration has set ambitious targets, aiming to remove up to one million people during the president’s first year back in office.
Judge Gallagher specifically noted in her ruling that there was no evidence presented indicating that Cristian posed any threat to public safety. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs accused the Trump administration of attempting to circumvent the settlement agreement through this deportation. The judge’s decision makes clear that existing legal agreements cannot be disregarded, even as the administration pursues its broader immigration enforcement agenda.
Implications for Future Deportation Cases
These consecutive judicial rebukes raise questions about the legal sustainability of some aspects of the administration’s deportation approach. While President Trump maintains significant authority over immigration enforcement, these cases demonstrate that such authority remains bound by existing court settlements, due process requirements, and other legal constraints. The rulings may require the administration to implement additional procedural safeguards to ensure that individuals with pending asylum claims or other protected statuses are not improperly removed from the country.
As the administration continues to pursue its deportation objectives, these cases serve as important reminders of the judiciary’s role in ensuring that enforcement actions comply with established legal frameworks. The outcomes of these cases could potentially impact how immigration officials handle similar situations moving forward, particularly regarding individuals who may have special protections under existing court settlements or asylum proceedings.
Sources:
- Judge Orders Administration to Seek Return of Another Deported Migrant – The New York Times
- Judge rules the Trump administration violated a 2019 settlement in deporting a man to El Salvador
- Trump Administration Must Seek to Return Another Wrongly Deported Man, Judge Rules
