In a unanimous decision, the justices mandated that the government must pursue the return of an individual it wrongfully deported.
The United States stands at a precarious juncture as the Supreme Court’s acceptance of President Donald Trump’s vision of unhindered authority clashes with the justices’ anticipation that he will comply with their rulings.
This evening, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a portion of a lower-court ruling that directed the Trump administration to take steps to retrieve Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who—as The Atlantic initially reported—was mistakenly sent to El Salvador’s infamous Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT. Abrego Garcia, who illegally entered the U.S. but was permitted to remain due to a judge’s determination that he was at risk of gang persecution in El Salvador, could become the first individual publicly known to be released from CECOT.
“The order correctly mandates the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case follows the same process it would have if he had not been wrongfully sent to El Salvador,” the justices noted in an unsigned statement.
The unanimity of the decision is significant. The Roberts Court has supported Trump at nearly every opportunity, from ignoring the anti-insurrection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to enabling his federal prosecution by creating an unfounded concept of presidential immunity. Justice John Roberts and his colleagues have employed selective proceduralism to sidestep directly confronting the Trump administration, contrasting sharply with their eagerness in cases that align with their preferred outcomes. Yet the confrontation they attempted to avoid has arrived, with even the most pro-Trump justices, such as Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, siding with their peers in informing the Trump administration that its actions were unlawful and must be rectified.
Abrego Garcia has lived in the U.S. for over a decade without a criminal history. He is married to a U.S. citizen and has an American child; the sole evidence linking him to gangs is an unverified claim from an anonymous informant in 2019. Due process requires the state to substantiate its allegations before infringing on an individual’s life and freedom. The Constitution recognizes that law enforcement can be flawed and potentially abusive, rather than infallible.
Despite this, the Trump administration has continued to assert that Abrego Garcia is a dangerous gang member to justify his transportation to a foreign facility accused of torturing detainees. The administration’s argument that no court could compel it to retrieve Abrego Garcia, even after wrongly deporting him, raises broader concerns: it suggests that the government could similarly strand U.S. citizens overseas “by mistake” and abandon them. Trump has openly entertained the notion of purposefully deporting American citizens.
“The only argument the Government presents in support of its position, that U.S. courts cannot provide relief once a deportee leaves the country, is manifestly incorrect,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor stated in a commentary agreeing with the ruling and joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan. “The Government’s stance implies that it could deport and detain any individual, including U.S. citizens, without legal repercussions, as long as it does so before a court can intervene.” In a previous judgment regarding this case, the conservative federal judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III remarked that “this is a path of absolute lawlessness, one that courts cannot endorse.”
While the Supreme Court executed what was necessary in this situation, the justices are nonetheless undertaking considerable political risks. Trump supporters have publicly discussed and repeatedly suggested defying court orders with which they disagree. Reports indicate they may have already done so in this instance, ignoring a federal judge’s oral instruction to turn back the aircraft carrying men sent to CECOT—90 percent of whom have no criminal record and all of whom were deported without due process. (The administration claims it was adhering to the judge’s written instructions.) If Trump chooses to disregard the Supreme Court, America will be a significant step closer to authoritarianism and unconstitutional governance. The implications of this case could elucidate the justices’ unanimous decision, a clear display of power—their authority diminishes in a system where court orders are optional.
The outcomes of this evening’s decision are hard to foresee. The Trump administration may opt to adhere to the court ruling and facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. Alternatively, it could openly defy the ruling. It might also make a token attempt to retrieve Abrego Garcia and then claim they were unsuccessful. The Salvadoran government has declared that anyone held at CECOT will never be released—if Abrego Garcia were to return, he could potentially reveal the conditions he endured at the facility, which could provoke political ramifications for both Salvadoran authorities and the Trump administration.
Should the Trump administration maintain the authority to send individuals from the U.S. to foreign imprisonment, the rights of American citizens—along with those of immigrants and undocumented individuals—become meaningless. If the government makes a half-hearted attempt to recover Abrego Garcia, those rights would then transform into the “parchment barriers” James Madison feared could be effortlessly violated. If Trump defies the Court, there will be little to restrain him from acting as a dictator, especially with the compliance of Republicans in Congress.
The potential dangers for constitutional governance are vast. Even if this case unfolds favorably, Trump’s ambitions for unchecked authority suggest that the nation will never stray too far from the “path of perfect lawlessness,” particularly as long as he remains in power.
