A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to repatriate a second person wrongfully deported to El Salvador, raising serious questions about enforcement practices in the administration’s aggressive immigration agenda.
At a Glance
- Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher ruled the administration violated a 2019 settlement by deporting a 20-year-old Venezuelan man to El Salvador
- This follows a similar case where the Supreme Court ordered the release of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, also wrongfully deported
- The deportation occurred under Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act
- The judge found no evidence the deportee, identified as Cristian, posed a threat to public safety
- The ruling challenges the administration’s immigration enforcement approach that aims to deport up to 1 million people in Trump’s first year
Court Orders Repatriation of Wrongfully Deported Venezuelan
Federal Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher in Maryland has ordered the Trump administration to take affirmative steps to return a 20-year-old Venezuelan man, identified only as Cristian, who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. The judge determined that his deportation violated a 2019 settlement agreement protecting young migrants with pending asylum cases. This marks the second such order in recent weeks, highlighting growing judicial pushback against the administration’s aggressive deportation policies.
Cristian was deported after being convicted on drug charges and was deemed subject to President Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act. However, Judge Gallagher noted in her ruling that the government presented no evidence that Cristian posed any actual threat to public safety. The Justice Department has argued that Judge Gallagher lacks jurisdiction to review the deportation or compel his return, but the court rejected this position.
Pattern of Judicial Intervention
This ruling follows a similar Supreme Court order for the release of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, another migrant wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Judge Paula Xinis is handling Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case and is enforcing an order for his release, despite President Trump’s public claims of being powerless to bring him back. Both cases stem from what appears to be a pattern of procedural violations in the administration’s execution of its deportation plan.
The recent rulings raise significant questions about the administration’s response to judicial instructions regarding wrongly deported migrants. The court orders explicitly require the government to take concrete steps to facilitate the return of these individuals, challenging the administration’s stance on its obligations under previous settlement agreements and court rulings. This tension between judicial decisions and executive implementation has become increasingly apparent.
Legal Background and Settlement Violations
The case originates from a class action lawsuit filed in July 2019 by immigrants who entered the United States as unaccompanied children. They claimed the government made unlawful policy modifications affecting their asylum applications. Judge Gallagher had previously approved a settlement in this lawsuit requiring the return of individuals like Cristian to the United States for proper processing of their asylum applications.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs have accused the Trump administration of attempting to circumvent the settlement agreement. Government lawyers countered that the Alien Enemies Act was invoked due to perceived threats from the Tren de Aragua gang, but the court found this justification insufficient in Cristian’s case. The administration’s deportation initiative, which aims to remove up to 1 million people in President Trump’s first year, has encountered multiple legal obstacles.
Implications for Immigration Enforcement
These judicial interventions highlight significant challenges to the administration’s enforcement approach. While the government maintains its authority to deport individuals who pose threats to national security, these cases demonstrate that courts are closely scrutinizing the actual implementation of these policies to ensure compliance with existing legal frameworks and settlement agreements.
The orders to repatriate wrongfully deported individuals could have broader implications for the administration’s immigration agenda. With courts actively monitoring and intervening in deportation cases, the government may face additional legal hurdles in executing its planned deportations. These developments suggest a continuing tension between aggressive enforcement policies and judicial oversight of due process requirements.
