In a forceful ruling that reads as both legal decision and constitutional warning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the Trump administration’s emergency request to halt legal proceedings in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident wrongfully deported to El Salvador despite a standing federal court order.
The 35-page order, issued April 17 by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III on behalf of a unanimous three-judge panel, denounces the government’s actions as “shocking,” warning that the executive branch is testing the boundaries of the rule of law itself. “[This] should be shocking not only to judges,” Wilkinson wrote, “but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”
Abrego Garcia, a former asylum seeker, was granted protection from deportation in 2019 after fleeing gang violence in El Salvador. He has lived in Maryland with his wife and son. But in March 2025, despite a pending habeas petition and a court order barring his removal, he was forcibly deported and is now imprisoned in El Salvador’s notorious CECOT super-prison—a sprawling facility known for its mass incarceration of alleged gang members under harsh conditions.
Though the U.S. Supreme Court had earlier directed the Trump administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return and ensure his legal case would proceed as if he had never been removed, the Fourth Circuit found that the administration had done virtually nothing to comply. Instead, it had interpreted “facilitation” as simply lifting domestic restrictions and disavowing further responsibility, even as Abrego Garcia remains behind bars in a foreign prison.
“‘Facilitate’ is an active verb,” the court ruled. “It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted… Allowing all this would ‘facilitate’ foreign detention more than it would domestic return.”
The ruling also raises broader constitutional stakes. In one of its most striking warnings, the court observed: “If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?”
The court’s decision comes just days after U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) made a high-profile trip to El Salvador to check on Abrego Garcia’s condition and pressure the Salvadoran government for his release. As reported by the BBC, Van Hollen was initially denied access to Abrego Garcia but ultimately secured a meeting and confirmed that he was alive and in stable condition.
Still, the senator described the situation as “deeply troubling” and emphasized that both the U.S. and Salvadoran governments are now failing to meet their obligations.
“What we’re seeing is not just a failure of due process, but a willful erosion of legal norms,” Van Hollen said in a statement after the visit. “No one should be disappeared across borders in defiance of a court order.”
In a press conference, Van Hollen confirmed that Abrego Garcia is being held in the same high-security prison where thousands of Salvadorans accused of gang affiliation are detained, often without trial or legal counsel. The facility has been widely criticized by human rights organizations for inhumane conditions and mass detentions.
Van Hollen expressed skepticism that the Salvadoran government could not act: “President Bukele claims he has no power to release Mr. Abrego Garcia. I find that difficult to believe.”
The Fourth Circuit’s opinion reads not only as a defense of individual rights, but as a broader indictment of growing executive disregard for the judicial branch. In unusually direct language, Judge Wilkinson compared the administration’s position to “the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers.”
Citing statements made by Donald Trump at an April 14 bilateral meeting with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele—where Trump appeared to suggest sending “homegrown criminals” to foreign prisons—the court expressed alarm. “Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran governments disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia,” Wilkinson wrote. “The result will be to leave matters generally and Abrego Garcia specifically in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.”
In footnotes, the court pointed to recent media reports including Trump’s declaration that “homegrowns are next” and his openness to “sending violent American criminals to El Salvador prisons” as signs of a potentially broader executive strategy to evade constitutional safeguards.
“The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts,” the opinion warns, “but over time, history will script the tragic gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.”
Legal scholars and immigrant rights advocates praised the ruling but remained concerned about enforcement.
“This is one of the most powerful federal appeals court opinions we’ve seen in recent years defending due process and judicial authority,” said Aarti Kohli, executive director of Advancing Justice – Asian Law Caucus. “But the reality is, it’s a piece of paper until the government acts.”
The administration has argued—without public evidence—that Abrego Garcia is affiliated with MS-13, a claim the court acknowledged but dismissed as legally irrelevant without due process. “Regardless, he is still entitled to due process,” Wilkinson wrote, adding that if the government truly believes its claims, it should pursue termination of Abrego Garcia’s withholding of removal through appropriate legal channels.
The ruling also pointedly noted that the government itself has admitted the deportation was a mistake—raising the question: “Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?”
The district court proceedings in Maryland will continue, as ordered by the Supreme Court and affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. Judge Paula Xinis is expected to hold a hearing in the coming weeks to evaluate the government’s compliance and consider whether to issue further orders to secure Abrego Garcia’s return.
Meanwhile, Van Hollen has vowed to maintain pressure on both governments and is urging the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the deportation and any violations of court orders. Advocates are also calling on international human rights organizations to intervene.
For now, Abrego Garcia remains in legal limbo—imprisoned in a country from which U.S. law had explicitly protected him, caught between two governments claiming powerlessness, and reliant on the courts and civil society to fight for his return.
As Judge Wilkinson concluded: “This case presents a unique chance to vindicate the rule of law and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.”
This article hasn’t gotten much attention – at least by the commenters. Look at this ruling written by Reagan appointee Harvie Wilkinson, one of the US’s most respected conservative judges, a defender of executive power: