“To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison.” – Justice Sonia Sotomayor
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a sharp and unanimous ruling Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a strong rebuke to the federal government for illegally deporting a Salvadoran man in violation of a standing immigration court order. The ruling is seen as a significant blow to Trump immigration tactics and a reminder that executive discretion must remain within the bounds of law.
The case, Noem v. Abrego Garcia, involved Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a longtime U.S. resident who was arrested without a warrant in Maryland and flown to El Salvador on March 15, 2025—despite a 2019 judicial order explicitly forbidding his removal on the grounds that he would likely face persecution there. Abrego Garcia is currently imprisoned in El Salvador’s notorious “Center for Terrorism Confinement.”
In its unsigned per curiam decision, the Court allowed parts of a lower court injunction requiring the government to remedy its unlawful conduct to remain in place. While it vacated a technical deadline that had lapsed under a prior administrative stay, the Court ordered the government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from El Salvador and ensure that his case proceeds “as it would have been had he not been improperly sent” there.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a searing concurrence that functioned as a pointed indictment of the government’s actions—and a broader condemnation of abuses linked to prior immigration policies.
“To this day, the Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his confinement in a Salvadoran prison,” Sotomayor wrote. “Nor could it.” She emphasized that the government remained bound by a prior immigration judge’s finding that Abrego Garcia faced a “clear probability of future persecution” in El Salvador and that its authorities were “unable or unwilling to protect him.”
In a particularly striking passage, she rejected the government’s justification that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was merely an “administrative error,” stating, “Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an ‘oversight.’” She added, “The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia… in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. That view refutes itself.”
The government argued that courts lose the power to intervene once a person has been removed from the United States—an assertion the Court flatly rejected. Citing Boumediene v. Bush and Rumsfeld v. Padilla, Justice Sotomayor underscored that legal protections do not vanish at the border: “The Government’s argument… implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”
While the Court declined to order Abrego Garcia’s immediate return, it left open the possibility of further relief on remand and signaled that the federal government must comply with its own legal obligations—including those under the Convention Against Torture, federal immigration law, and its own internal policies.
“It must also comply with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture,” Sotomayor wrote, further citing federal regulations that mandate due process and require proper notice and hearings in immigration detention proceedings.
The unanimous nature of the ruling—combined with Sotomayor’s stinging critique—marks a significant institutional pushback against overreach in the immigration enforcement system. Legal analysts say it could serve as a warning to future administrations that attempts to sidestep court orders and established protections will not be tolerated by the judiciary.
“This decision makes clear that due process does not end at the tarmac,” said one immigration attorney involved in the case. “It affirms that the rule of law applies, even when the government tries to cloak its actions in national security or administrative error.”
The case will now return to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for further proceedings. Abrego Garcia remains detained in El Salvador.
