DOJ fights judge’s order to bring back deported man as new MS-13 links surface

The U.S. Department of Justice has formally notified a federal court that it will appeal a recent ruling ordering the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite existing legal protections. On the same day, the department made public two internal documents previously cited to support the government’s claim that Abrego Garcia had connections to the violent criminal gang MS-13. His legal team disputes the reliability and intent behind these documents, which had not been disclosed during key parts of his legal proceedings.

The development comes amid a growing legal and political standoff over the executive branch’s compliance with judicial orders in immigration matters. Earlier this week, a federal judge compelled top administration officials to testify regarding the circumstances that led to Abrego Garcia’s deportation in March 2025, despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that granted him protection from removal due to the threat of persecution in his home country.

Why is Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation considered illegal by the court?

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who had resided legally in Maryland, was granted protection under U.S. immigration laws following credible claims that his life would be at risk if returned to El Salvador. His attorneys argued that the 2019 order offered legal immunity from deportation based on well-founded fears of persecution from gangs in the region. Nonetheless, in March 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement removed him to El Salvador in what the DOJ has since acknowledged as an “administrative error.”

The Supreme Court later issued a unanimous ruling directing the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. However, the Trump administration has pushed back, asserting that the federal government cannot compel another sovereign nation to return a foreign national, particularly one that El Salvador now considers a national security threat.

What evidence does the DOJ say connects Abrego Garcia to MS-13?

Alongside its appeal notice, the DOJ released two documents it claims were used to justify internal determinations that Abrego Garcia was affiliated with MS-13, one of the most dangerous transnational criminal organizations. These include an incident report allegedly linking him to gang activity, and a memorandum prepared by law enforcement officers based on unspecified intelligence.

Legal analysts note that these documents had not been presented in court before and question their credibility, as one of the officers involved has since been dismissed for misconduct. Immigration lawyers assert that the DOJ’s move to release them now—after a court ruling unfavourable to the government—appears to be a tactic to shape public perception rather than a legitimate legal defence.

How are lawmakers and courts reacting to the DOJ’s position?

Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has taken a leading role in challenging the administration’s actions. He travelled to El Salvador in early April 2025 seeking to visit Abrego Garcia in detention but was denied access by local authorities. He later described the situation as a “constitutional crisis,” accusing the White House of flouting judicial authority and endangering a lawful U.S. resident.

The broader legal community is also watching closely, as the case tests the boundaries of executive power, judicial oversight, and international cooperation on deportation cases. The judge who ordered administration officials to testify this week stressed that compliance with court orders is not optional, even for the federal government.

What are the diplomatic implications with El Salvador?

Relations between the U.S. and El Salvador have become increasingly strained over the Abrego Garcia case. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has refused to return Abrego Garcia, labelling him a “terrorist” despite the lack of formal charges in either country. The Salvadoran government’s refusal to cooperate complicates Washington’s legal responsibilities and presents a diplomatic challenge in enforcing court orders.

Meanwhile, human rights groups argue that Abrego Garcia’s continued detention in El Salvador puts him at severe risk, particularly if his perceived gang affiliation becomes public in a country where extrajudicial killings of suspected gang members are common.

What happens next in the DOJ’s appeal process?

The DOJ’s appeal will now move through the U.S. appellate system, potentially reaching the Supreme Court again if the case continues to escalate. Legal experts warn that a prolonged delay in enforcing the return order could set a dangerous precedent for executive branch noncompliance with immigration-related court rulings.

Until the appeal is resolved, Abrego Garcia remains in Salvadoran custody with limited access to legal counsel or family communication. His lawyers continue to advocate for humanitarian and legal interventions while pushing for clarity on whether the administration’s interpretation of “facilitate” includes direct repatriation.

What does this case mean for immigration and legal oversight in the U.S.?

This case highlights critical questions about the balance between the judicial branch’s authority and executive enforcement in immigration matters. The rare move to compel testimony from high-ranking administration officials suggests courts are prepared to hold the executive accountable for violating due process, even in complex deportation cases.

If the administration is successful in its appeal, it may reshape the legal framework surrounding enforcement of immigration court protections, especially for individuals previously granted relief based on credible fear of persecution. Conversely, if the courts hold firm, it could reinforce legal boundaries limiting administrative overreach and affirm that no agency is above judicial scrutiny.