Richmond, VA — In a sharply worded rebuke, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has denied the Trump administration’s emergency motion to halt the court-ordered repatriation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, calling the government’s actions a “shocking” violation of due process and a troubling affront to constitutional principles.
The panel of Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Robert B. King, and Stephanie D. Thacker dismissed the federal government’s request for an emergency stay and a writ of mandamus, stressing that even individuals accused of terrorism or gang affiliation—such as Abrego Garcia—are entitled to the foundational protections of the U.S. Constitution.
“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order,” the court declared in its April 17 order.
Defendants and Background
The lawsuit was brought by Abrego Garcia, his partner Jennifer Stefania Vasquez Sura, and their minor child, A.A.V., against South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, Todd Lyons, Kenneth Genalo, Nikita Baker, Pamela Jo Bondi, and Senator Marco Rubio—who are named as defendants and appellants in the case.
The legal battle follows the wrongful deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, despite a standing withholding of removal order under U.S. immigration law. The government has since admitted the deportation was carried out in error.
Court Emphasizes Due Process Rights
While the administration has argued that Abrego Garcia is affiliated with the violent MS-13 gang and poses a national security risk, the court emphasized that such allegations—even if substantiated—do not excuse the government from affording him due process.
“Perhaps, but perhaps not,” Judge Wilkinson wrote. “Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.”
Citing 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f), the court reminded the government that it bears the burden of proving “by a preponderance of the evidence” that the individual no longer qualifies for protection from removal. That burden was never met in a lawful forum before the deportation occurred.
“Facilitate” Means Action, Not Excuse
The government also argued that it had satisfied its legal obligation by removing domestic legal barriers to Garcia’s return. The court flatly rejected that interpretation, referencing the Supreme Court’s April 10 decision in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, which ordered the Executive Branch to actively facilitate his release from Salvadoran custody and restoration of legal process.
“‘Facilitate’ is an active verb,” the court said. “It requires that steps be taken, as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear.”
The panel noted that passive inaction or narrow administrative definitions cannot override the Supreme Court’s clear language.
Warning Against Erosion of Constitutional Safeguards
The court used unusually strong language to warn of broader constitutional dangers if the Executive Branch continues to defy judicial authority:
“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?”
Invoking Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the judges warned that the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” is at risk of being hollowed out.
The court also criticized escalating political attacks on the judiciary and public calls to disregard court orders, warning that this trend undermines public trust and democratic institutions.
Historical Parallel: Eisenhower’s Integrity vs. Present Conflict
In a striking analogy, the court referenced President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who upheld the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II despite personal misgivings, deploying federal troops to enforce desegregation:
“Unless the President did so,” Eisenhower warned, “anarchy would result.”
The court contrasted this act of constitutional duty with the Trump administration’s current posture, lamenting that today’s Executive is moving toward lawlessness rather than lawful governance.
Diplomatic Stalemate and Legal Crisis
The court noted that both the U.S. and Salvadoran governments now deny authority or obligation to secure Abrego Garcia’s return, leaving him in an “interminable limbo” and raising fears of permanent constitutional injury.
“Allowing all this would ‘facilitate’ foreign detention more than it would domestic return,” the judges wrote. “It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness.”
Full court order available here: Read the Court’s Decision (PDF)
Image Disclaimer: Editorial illustration used for commentary and reporting purposes. Not an actual photograph.
Copyright Notice: This original article was produced by Virginia Times based on publicly available court documents. Unauthorized reproduction without attribution is strictly prohibited.
A global media for the latest news, entertainment, music fashion, and more.
