Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are seeking sanctions against Trump administration officials for repeatedly defying court orders to return him to the United States after his wrongful deportation.
Deportation Despite Legal Protection
The case involves the unlawful removal of Abrego Garcia from the U.S. to his native country of El Salvador. Abrego Garcia had been granted withholding of removal in 2019, which prohibited his removal to El Salvador. But this past March, he was apprehended in Maryland without legal basis and removed to El Salvador without further process or legal justification. He has been returned to the U.S. to face criminal charges.
Withholding of removal is a form of protection granted to individuals in the United States who fear persecution or torture if returned to their home country. While the phrase “withholding of removal” is specific to the U.S., the same principle is practiced in many other countries by other names, such as non-removable status, humanitarian protection, and non-refoulement.
If you’re thinking this sounds a lot like asylum, well, the two are similar in principle but should not be confused. Unlike asylum, which can lead to lawful permanent resident (LPR) status and eventually citizenship, withholding of removal does not provide a path to a green card or U.S. citizenship. It is a "defense to removal" or "relief from removal" rather than an affirmative immigration benefit, meaning it only protects an individual from being deported to the specific country where they fear harm.
To be granted withholding, an applicant must demonstrate that it is "more likely than not" (a higher standard than asylum's "well-founded fear") that they would be persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or that they would be tortured upon return. Individuals granted withholding of removal are typically allowed to remain in the U.S. and obtain work authorization, but they cannot travel outside the U.S. without risking their ability to re-enter.
The Feds Break the Law
Abrego Garcia was granted withholding, which means that federal authorities were legally restricted from deporting him to El Salvador, and only El Salvador. Withholding does not prevent the government from detaining the individual (though prolonged detention is often challenged), nor does it prevent the government from attempting to remove the individual to a third country where they do not fear persecution.
What happens if someone who was granted withholding of removal was removed anyway? It is a clear violation of the law. A grant of withholding of removal is a final order by an immigration judge or the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), legally binding to the U.S. government. Unlawfully removing such an individual would be a direct contravention of U.S. immigration law and international obligations (specifically, the Convention Against Torture, if that was the basis for the grant).
If authorities decided to deport someone who had been granted withholding, the government would be in severe legal jeopardy. Doing so would be the basis of a lawsuit against the government, and so it’s really no surprise that advocates quickly acted to sue the government on behalf of Abrego Garcia.
Court Sides with Abrego Garcia
Lucky for Abrego Garcia, Big Law firms often have a pro bono practice, and these are the types of headline-grabbing cases they like to take for free. A large team of lawyers from Quinn Emanuel took his case up while he was detained back in El Salvador. They argued that his removal violated several legal protections, including 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3)(A), the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
On April 4, a federal district court in Maryland found that Abrego Garcia was likely to succeed on the merits because his removal violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and was conducted without any legal process. Judge Paula Xinis determined that his continued presence in El Salvador constitutes irreparable harm, and the balance of equities and public interest favor his return to the United States. Consequently, she granted a preliminary injunction directing the defendants to return Abrego Garcia to the United States by April 7 to restore the status quo and preserve his access to due process.
The Trump Administration did not comply.
Trump Admin Refuses to Comply
For nearly two months, the administration repeatedly failed to comply with the explicit instructions from Judge Xinis.
When April 7 came, the government appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the facilitation order. SCOTUS, however, affirmed that the district court could indeed require the government to facilitate the return of an individual wrongfully removed, emphasizing that the facilitation should be an active process. SCOTUS said that the government was not irreparably harmed by doing so and denied the government a stay.
But the Trump administration still refused to play ball. It produced “not a single document detailing even a single step to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return,” according to his lawyers. Judge Xinis expressed frustration with the government’s conduct, at one point scolding Justice Department attorneys for doing “nothing at all” to comply with her order and later accusing them of “a willful and bad faith refusal” to obey her directives.
The situation was further aggravated by the Trump administration's nearly 50 public statements openly declaring they would not comply with the court’s orders, directly contradicting assurances made by government lawyers in court.
Sanctions in Store?
Last week, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers filed a 33-page motion for sanctions for the government’s “sustained and flagrant” violations of court orders. In it, they accused officials of harboring “a disdain for the judicial process.” Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are asking Judge Xinis to appoint a special master to investigate the government’s noncompliance and to impose financial penalties for contempt if warranted.
Among the federal officials who would face these sanctions are Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pam Bondi, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. They also allege that Joseph Mazzara, the general counsel of Homeland Security and a lawyer involved in the case, may have given untruthful testimony under oath — a claim supported by internal communications reported in the press. He’s singled out for possible personal sanctions due to his conduct during discovery.
As Abrego Garcia’s attorneys summarized: “Nearly 60 days, 10 orders, three depositions, three discovery disputes, three motions for stay, two hearings, a weeklong stay and a failed appeal later, the plaintiffs still have seen no evidence to suggest that the defendants took any steps, much less ‘all available steps,’ to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return … as soon as possible.”
Garcia Returns to U.S.
On June 6, the U.S. did bring Garcia back to face federal smuggling charges. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele agreed to return him after U.S. officials showed that they had an arrest warrant out for him.
He is currently in Tennessee. Garcia was stopped by the state's Highway Patrol there in 2022. Although they suspected him of human trafficking (for transporting people in the country without authorization), they only issued him a warning for an expired driver’s license at the time. He recently pleaded not guilty to federal human smuggling charges. It remains to be seen if he will be released on bail.
The Trump administration has asked Judge Xinis for more time to prove that they complied with court orders. Regardless of whether Garcia is convicted of criminal charges, the sanctions could be implemented due to the Trump administration's foot-dragging.
Related Resources:
- Deportation and Removal Laws (FindLaw's Learn About the Law)
- Are More Deportations "By Mistake" On the Way? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- How to Fight Wrongful Deportation (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
