Trump DOJ says federal courts have ‘no authority’ to demand El Salvador return deported Maryland MS-13 gang member

The seven-page order requested that US District Judge Paula Xinis "deny Plaintiffs’ requests for further relief," saying that the relief sought "is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s instruction requiring this court to respect the President’s Article II authority to manage foreign policy."

Attorneys for the DOJ said that the requested additional relief was not consistent with the Supreme Court’s order or "the well-established meaning of 'facilitating' returns in immigration law, and harbors fundamental constitutional infirmities."

The April 10 order from the Supreme Court said that any new order must "clarify" the "scope of the term 'effectuate'" in a manner that did not "exceed the District Court’s authority," and that any directive must give "due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." The District Court amended its order in response, directing that "Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of [Kilmar Armando] Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible."

The DOJ wrote that it understood "facilitate" to mean "what that term has long meant in the immigration context, namely actions allowing an alien to enter the United States," and that taking "all available steps to facilitate" his return to the US "is thus best read as taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here."

They wrote that reading "facilitate" as "requiring something more than domestic measures" would "not only flout the Supreme Court’s order, but also violate the separation of powers."

"The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner," the filing stated.

The attorneys said the additional relief "runs headlong through this constitutional limit" by asking the court to "make demands of the El Salvadoran government," "dispatch personnel onto the soil of an independent, sovereign nation," and "send an aircraft into the airspace of a sovereign foreign nation to extract a citizen of that nation from its custody."

"All of those requested orders involve interactions with a foreign sovereign—and potential violations of that sovereignty. But as explained, a federal court cannot compel the Executive Branch to engage in any mandated act of diplomacy or incursion upon the sovereignty of another nation," the filing stated.

In compliance with the District Court’s order for the DOJ to provide daily updates to the court on Abrego Garcia’s physical location and custody status, as well as steps the administration has taken to facilitate his return, the DOJ on Saturday said that Abrego Garcia was "alive and secure" in El Salvador’s custody, the filing noted. It added that El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, would be visiting with President Donald Trump at the White House on Monday.

"Defendants will continue to share updates as appropriate. Any further intrusion into this sensitive process—and any directive from the Court to take action against the nation of El Salvador—would be inconsistent with the care counseled by the Supreme Court."

The filing also noted that the plaintiffs had requested documents reflecting "the terms of any agreement, arrangement or understanding regarding the Government’s use of CECOT to house US deportees," which calls for the "immediate production of classified documents, as well as documents that Defendants may elect to assert are subject to the protections of attorney-client privilege and the State Secrets privilege."

"It would be inappropriate for this Court to hastily order production of these sensitive documents, particularly where Defendants are continuing to regularly update the Court here."

Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported in March to an El Salvadoran prison, with the Trump administration claiming that he was a member of the violent MS-13 gang. In a filing to the Supreme Court, the DOJ said that he was removed to El Salvador through "administrative error," though his removal from the US "was not an error."

Response to Plaintiff's Motion For Relief by Hannah Nightingale on Scribd