Demonstrators chant outside the Embassy of El Salvador in Washington against President Donald Trump’s use of El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center for deported individuals, April 14, 2025.
Nathan Howard/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Nathan Howard/AP
The complicated legal situation surrounding a wrongly deported immigrant from El Salvador has raised concerns about President Trump’s power to deny due process to anyone and not just to undocumented immigrants—if he chooses to remove them from the country, according to a constitutional expert.
The case raises critical questions about whether Trump will choose to respect someone’s rights or simply deport them, a sentiment expressed by University of Baltimore School of Law professor Kim Wehle during her interview with Morning Edition.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant granted protection against deportation by a judge in 2019, was apprehended and deported in March. He lived in Maryland for nearly 15 years and had no criminal record. The Trump administration acknowledged that his removal stemmed from an “administrative error.”
Currently, he is being held in a massive prison in El Salvador that is known for incarcerating individuals accused of gang affiliations. Human rights advocates have raised concerns regarding mistreatment within this facility.
Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration should “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return; however, it did not compel officials to bring him back and stated that courts must defer to the executive branch in matters concerning foreign policy.
Wehle provided an analysis of why the Trump administration lacks urgency in securing Abrego Garcia’s return and the potential repercussions this legal reasoning may have for U.S. citizens.
The Supreme Court did not mandate Trump to ensure Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S.
The Court ruled in favor of a lower court decision requiring the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, yet Wehle pointed out that the Supreme Court has clarified a distinction between “facilitating” and “effectuating.”
“I believe Trump took that as an opportunity to declare, ‘Look, I’m attempting this, but I’m not obligated. The court hasn’t commanded that I do this, and I can refer to my authority over foreign relations, which no one can contest,’” said Wehle.
President Trump and President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador meet in the Oval Office on April 14, 2025.
Win McNamee/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Win McNamee/Getty Images
During a meeting in the Oval Office with President Bukele on Monday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed reporters that the judiciary does not possess the authority to dictate foreign policy. Bukele further claimed that it would be “absurd” to suggest he would return Abrego Garcia to the U.S.
Foreign powers are referenced in the Constitution, yet due process is a guaranteed right.
Wehle recently shared her thoughts in a column where she contended that the Supreme Court made a significant constitutional leap in its ruling by implying that the president is not obligated to returning Abrego Garcia as long as he cites foreign policy reasons.
“While the Constitution does grant the president authority over foreign relations, it cannot override the essential constitutional right guaranteed in the Constitution’s straightforward language,” Wehle emphasized.
