Greenbelt, MD — Attorneys for Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia have filed a motion demanding that the Trump administration comply with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that ordered the government to facilitate his return to the United States after he was unlawfully deported to El Salvador.
The motion, filed Saturday in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, accuses the federal government of openly defying both the Supreme Court and prior district court orders, leaving Abrego Garcia languishing in a dangerous Salvadoran prison under conditions described as life-threatening.
“The Government should be required to comply with the Supreme Court’s order that it ‘ensure that [Abrego Garcia’s] case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,’” plaintiffs wrote, quoting from a new filing.
The Supreme Court’s ruling—delivered just days ago—affirmed a preliminary injunction issued by the Maryland district court and sharply criticized the Trump administration’s decision to deport Abrego Garcia while litigation was still pending. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts stated unequivocally that the government must take affirmative steps to reverse the illegal removal, facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador, and restore his case to the position it would have occupied had he remained in the U.S.
“This was not merely a procedural oversight,” said one of Abrego Garcia’s attorneys. “This was a grave violation of due process—one that endangered our client’s life and challenged the constitutional authority of the courts.”
Despite the ruling, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies have taken no discernible steps to comply. At a court hearing on April 11, government attorneys refused to disclose even basic information about Abrego Garcia’s whereabouts or custodial status, in direct violation of the district court’s prior orders.
In their April 12 motion, plaintiffs request that the court order the government to take immediate, concrete action by Monday, April 14, including:
- Requesting Abrego Garcia’s release from the notorious Salvadoran prison CECOT, where he is allegedly being held at the United States’ direction;
- Dispatching personnel to accompany him to a U.S.-bound aircraft;
- Providing air transportation back to Maryland;
- Granting parole under immigration law to facilitate his reentry.
The motion also asks the court to authorize expedited discovery into the government’s actions—or inaction—including the production of documents detailing any agreement between U.S. agencies and Salvadoran authorities to detain U.S. deportees in CECOT. It also demands live testimony from officials in the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Department of State.
Finally, plaintiffs urge the court to issue an order to show cause requiring the government to explain why it should not be held in civil contempt for failing to comply with court orders—something courts are empowered to do when faced with willful disobedience.
“The Power to Bring Somebody Back”
Adding to the controversy is President Trump’s own admission that the executive branch has the authority to comply with the Court’s ruling. In remarks reported by The New York Times on April 11, Trump stated:
“If the Supreme Court said, ‘Bring somebody back,’ I would do that. … I respect the Supreme Court.”
The plaintiffs seized on that statement, noting that the President has now publicly confirmed what their filings have long argued: that the federal government not only has the power, but the legal obligation, to act.
“The President’s acknowledgment of the United States’ power to bring Abrego Garcia back notwithstanding,” the filing states, “the Department of Justice and other Government agencies continue to resist this Court and the Supreme Court.”
The motion alleges that the federal government has not only failed to act but has actively obstructed compliance, ignoring court-ordered deadlines and refusing to submit legally required declarations.
Abrego Garcia’s situation remains dire. His attorneys report that he is being held in CECOT—a maximum-security facility in El Salvador criticized by international human rights organizations for overcrowding, gang violence, and inhumane conditions. They argue that his continued detention there places him at serious risk of persecution and death.
According to prior court filings, Abrego Garcia was deported before his legal case could be resolved. The Supreme Court found that his removal was illegal and that he is entitled to be returned so that his case may proceed as though the deportation never occurred.
But the Trump administration’s refusal to comply has led to what legal observers are calling a “constitutional standoff” between the executive and judicial branches.
“The court’s injunction is not optional,” said lead attorney Jonathan Cooper of Quinn Emanuel. “The government’s refusal to act defies the Supreme Court, defies this Court, and defies the Constitution.”
Legal experts note that federal courts have broad authority to enforce their rulings, including through contempt sanctions. The plaintiffs’ motion cites Shillitani v. United States, a landmark 1966 Supreme Court case establishing a court’s inherent power to enforce compliance with its lawful orders.
The Abrego Garcia case has rapidly become a flashpoint in the broader legal and political battles over Trump-era immigration enforcement. With the 2024 election over and Trump once again in the White House, immigrant rights groups fear that the judiciary’s authority to check executive overreach is in danger of being eroded.
For Abrego Garcia, the stakes are personal and immediate. His attorneys stress that he is in danger every day he remains in Salvadoran custody, and that the government’s delay only compounds the harm he has already suffered.
“We’re talking about a man who has been illegally deported, locked in a foreign prison, and cut off from legal recourse—while the government drags its feet in defiance of the highest court in the land,” said attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg. “It’s unconscionable.”
A hearing is expected early next week. If the motion is granted, the district court could order immediate enforcement actions, impose contempt sanctions, and compel high-level officials to testify under oath. Such a move would be an extraordinary assertion of judicial authority—but one the plaintiffs say is necessary to uphold the rule of law.
“The court has spoken,” the motion concludes. “It is time for the government to listen.”
