Crime Trump Administration Sent Legal Immigrant to Prison in El Salvador

[The Diplomat]

Van Hollen has been doing a good deed, regardless of whether the guy is guilty or not. You need the rule of law, and transparency. If not, then anyone could just be taken in a black van and silenced.

This is from the BBC - which is rated as HIGH CREDIBILITY and LEFT-CENTER under Media Factcheck Bias.

What we know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia and MS-13 allegations
Shayan Sardarizadeh, Merlyn Thomas, Jake Horton & Mike Wendling
BBC Verify

The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia - a 29-year-old from El Salvador who was deported from the US in March - has prompted a legal showdown over the administration's immigration policy.

Judges all the way up to the US Supreme Court have ruled that Mr Abrego Garcia was deported in error and that the US government should help "facilitate" his return to his home in Maryland.

But the White House has accused Mr Abrego Garcia of being a member of the transnational Salvadorian gang MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organisation, saying that he will "will never live" in the US again.

Mr Abrego Garcia denies he is a member of the gang and he has not been convicted of any crime.

BBC Verify has examined court documents and public records to determine what's known – and what is still unknown – about Mr Abrego Garcia and his alleged ties to MS-13.

What do we know about alleged MS-13 links?​

Mr Abrego Garcia has acknowledged entering the US illegally in 2012, according to court documents.

In March 2019 he was detained along with three other people in Hyattsville, Maryland, in the car park of a Home Depot.

Officers at the Prince George's County Police Department said the men were "loitering" and subsequently identified Mr Abrego Garcia and two of the others as members of MS-13.

In a document titled the "Gang Field Interview Sheet", the local police detailed their observations.

They said Mr Abrego Garcia was wearing a "Chicago Bulls hat and a hoodie with rolls of money covering the eyes, ears and mouth of the presidents on the separate denominations".

Officers claimed the clothing was "indicative of the Hispanic gang culture" and that "wearing the Chicago Bulls hat represents thay (sic) they are a member in good standing with the MS-13".

Steven Dudley, a journalist and author who has spent years studying the MS-13 gang, said that it is true that "at some point, the Chicago Bulls logo with the horns became a stand-in of sorts for the MS-13's devil horns symbol".

But wearing the logo of the hugely popular basketball team, he added, is of course not exclusive to the gang.

"Any assertions about gang affiliation would need to be corroborated with testimony, criminal history, and other corroborating evidence," Mr Dudley said.

According to the field interview sheet and other court documents, officers said they were also advised by a "proven and reliable source" that Mr Abrego Garcia was an active member of MS-13's "westerns clique", with the rank of "chequeo".

However, Mr Dudley says that a "chequeo" is not a rank but is instead used to refer to recruits who are yet to be initiated.

Lawyers for Mr Abrego Garcia's argued in court filings that the "westerns clique" is based in New York, where they say their client has never lived. And according to government documents, he has dismissed the information given to police against him as "hearsay".

According to his lawyers, Mr Abrego Garcia has never been convicted of any criminal offence, including gang membership, in the US or in El Salvador. He lived in the US for 14 years, had three children and worked in construction, according to court records.

But the judge who presided over his 2019 case said that based on the confidential information, there was sufficient evidence to support Mr Abrego Garcia's gang membership. That finding was later upheld by another judge.

As a result Mr Abrego Garcia was refused bail and remained in custody. During this time he applied for asylum to prevent his deportation to El Salvador.

In October 2019 he was granted a "withholding of removal" order, court documents show - a status different from asylum, but one which prevented the US government from sending him back to El Salvador because he could face harm.

Mr Abrego Garcia's lawyers say that he was granted the status based on his "well-founded" fear of persecution by Barrio-18, the main rival gang of MS-13.

He said that prior to him entering the US, his family and their business had been threatened and extorted by Barrio-18.

Since 2019, when he was released with the protective order, Mr Abrego Garcia's lawyers say he has had yearly check-ins with immigration officials, which he has attended "without fail and without incident".

What are the separate allegations against him?​

Mr Abrego Garcia has faced at least two other allegations of criminal activity, neither of which resulted in a conviction.

In 2021, his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, filed a protective order petition against him, alleging that he had physically attacked her on multiple occasions, according to documents shared by the US Department of Homeland Security.

Ms Vasquez Sura said in a statement on 16 April that she had decided not to follow through with the court process at the time and that she and her husband "were able to work through this situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling".

She described her husband as "a loving partner and father" and has repeatedly denied he is an MS-13 gang member.

On 15 April, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also accused Mr Abrego Garcia of involvement in human trafficking.

She appeared to be referencing a report in The Tennessee Star, a conservative news website, which said Mr Abrego Garcia was detained by a Tennessee highway patrol officer on suspicion of human trafficking in December 2022 while driving a vehicle carrying seven passengers.

The report, which cited unnamed sources, said officers contacted the FBI and later released him and the passengers.

In a statement, the Tennessee Highway Patrol confirmed that Mr Abrego Garcia was stopped for allegedly speeding in 2022, but was released after officers contacted the FBI.

The agency did not comment on the other details included in the Tennessee Star report, which the BBC has not verified.

The FBI declined to comment. The BBC has contacted Mr Abrego Garcia's lawyers.

Due process. Have a trial in america, and send him back. You can't just skip legal proceedings and send people to El Salvador.

 

[NoSmilez]

Fuck I didn’t know my parents initiated me into MS 13 when they bought me my bulls cap. I guess my gang boss is Horace Grant.

 

[Osculater]

Fuck I didn’t know my parents initiated me into MS 13 when they bought me my bulls cap. I guess my gang boss is Horace Grant.

 

[Dreyga_King of Sherbums]

Tell that to the two immigration judges that determined he's a MS-13 member.

You're confused about how the law works. No immigration judge ever ruled that Kilmar García is MS-13. That’s just false. One judge actually granted him withholding of removal—which literally means they found he was in danger if deported. That wouldn’t happen if he was confirmed to be a gang member.

DHS accused him of gang ties based on a police report, but the officer who made that claim didn’t testify. That matters—because under U.S. law, especially in immigration court, evidence like that is considered hearsay unless the person who made it can be cross-examined. The judge threw it out for that exact reason.

Also, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that his deportation was illegal and that the government has to bring him back. That decision overrides everything else. So no—there is no legal ruling that he’s MS-13. You’re mixing up accusations with legal findings. That’s not how our justice system works.

People think two judges found him to be MS-13 because they’re confusing accusations with rulings, taking DHS’s word as gospel, and ignoring how the legal system actually works. The truth is: no judge ever ruled that Kilmar García was MS-13. On the contrary, the Supreme Court ruled the government violated the law in deporting him.

 

[The Diplomat]

Fuck I didn’t know my parents initiated me into MS 13 when they bought me my bulls cap. I guess my gang boss is Horace Grant.

Grant over Jordan?

 

[Limbo Pete]

I've been thinking of this constantly
...and that we have people unironically taking what should be a parody position

 

[jk7707]

Conservative judge blasts Trump administration’s ‘shocking’ conduct in Abrego Garcia case

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0.pdf

Here is a Reagan appointed judge directly calling out this administration for ignoring the Supreme Court.

"The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government “to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.” Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2. “Facilitate” is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear"

“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. “Facilitation” does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would “facilitate” foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood.

This opinion is 6 pages long. Read it.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

You're confused about how the law works. No immigration judge ever ruled that Kilmar García is MS-13. That’s just false. One judge actually granted him withholding of removal—which literally means they found he was in danger if deported. That wouldn’t happen if he was confirmed to be a gang member.

He claimed if he was returned to El Salvador he would have been hunted and killed by gangs.... that are in Los Angeles.

Also, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that his deportation was illegal and that the government has to bring him back.

Good luck with that happening.
*He's an El Salvador citizen.
*He's currently in El Salvador.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction for other countries to deport their own citizens into countries they're not citizens of and were here illegally.

And you're exaggerating with that 'Supreme Court has ruled the Trump Administration has to bring him back.'

People think two judges found him to be MS-13 because they’re confusing accusations with rulings, taking DHS’s word as gospel, and ignoring how the legal system actually works. The truth is: no judge ever ruled that Kilmar García was MS-13. On the contrary, the Supreme Court ruled the government violated the law in deporting him.

That cute.
So you think everyone, including El Salvador's government for confirming he's a MS-13 member, is wrong but your side who are so desperate to make this wifebeater a hero and Trump a villain, is correct.

Good luck with that.
This is going to go the same way as the egg price issue did.

 

[NoSmilez]

Grant over Jordan?

He had goggles and some hair.

 

[Dreyga_King of Sherbums]

He claimed if he was returned to El Salvador he would have been hunted and killed by gangs.... that are in Los Angeles.




Good luck with that happening.
*He's an El Salvador citizen.
*He's currently in El Salvador.
The Supreme Court has no jurisdiction for other countries to deport their own citizens into countries they're not citizens of and were here illegally.

And you're exaggerating with that 'Supreme Court has ruled the Trump Administration has to bring him back.'

That cute.
So you think everyone, including El Salvador's government for confirming he's a MS-13 member, is wrong but your side who are so desperate to make this wifebeater a hero and Trump a villain, is correct.

Good luck with that.
This is going to go the same way as the egg price issue did.

I understand where you're coming from, but respectfully, there are a few legal misunderstandings in your statement that are important to clarify.


The U.S. Supreme Court does not and cannot exert jurisdiction over El Salvador. That’s absolutely true. However, the Court does have jurisdiction over the actions of the United States government, particularly when it comes to constitutional rights and compliance with immigration law. In Kilmar Ábrego García’s case, the issue was not about what El Salvador chose to do—it was about whether the U.S. government violated its own laws by deporting someone who had legal protections in place.

Mr. García was granted withholding of removal by an immigration judge in 2019 under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is a legal protection given to individuals who can demonstrate they are more likely than not to face persecution if returned to their home country. That means, under U.S. law, he could not be deported to El Salvador unless new legal grounds were presented and adjudicated. That did not happen.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that his deportation violated due process. The government was ordered to facilitate his return—not because the Court has control over El Salvador, but because it has authority over what our executive agencies can and cannot do. That decision has been widely reported, including by the Associated Press and New York Magazine, and stands as binding precedent. This is not a political talking point—it is a matter of constitutional law.

Regarding the gang allegations, no judge ever formally determined that Mr. García was MS-13. The claim was made by DHS, citing a local police field interview sheet, but the officer who authored the report was never present for cross-examination. Because of that, the immigration judge excluded the evidence. In legal terms, it was inadmissible hearsay, and without the opportunity to challenge it, the court could not treat it as reliable. This is a basic due process protection built into both immigration proceedings and the broader American legal tradition.

Lastly, Mr. García was not in the country illegally. He entered the United States as a minor asylum seeker and, at the time of his removal, had lawful presence under the protection of a federal court order. Conflating “undocumented” with “illegal” ignores the legal nuance of asylum, withholding of removal, and ongoing proceedings.

This case is not about hero-worship or political point-scoring. It’s about whether we—as a nation of laws—will honor court rulings, constitutional protections, and the legal standards that apply to everyone. If we believe in the rule of law, then we have to follow it, even when it’s inconvenient. That’s what makes the system worth defending.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

I understand where you're coming from, but respectfully, there are a few legal misunderstandings in your statement that are important to clarify.


The U.S. Supreme Court does not and cannot exert jurisdiction over El Salvador. That’s absolutely true. However, the Court does have jurisdiction over the actions of the United States government, particularly when it comes to constitutional rights and compliance with immigration law. In Kilmar Ábrego García’s case, the issue was not about what El Salvador chose to do—it was about whether the U.S. government violated its own laws by deporting someone who had legal protections in place.

I respect you said 'respectfully,' and will reply with the same respect.

The Supreme Court has no enforcement over foreign policy. That's exclusively under the executive branch's authority.
They cannot command the executive branch, which has authority over foreign policy, to carry out commands made by the Supreme Court.

"separation of powers, division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. Such a separation, it has been argued, limits the possibility of arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering of laws."

Separation of powers | Definition & Facts | Britannica

Separation of powers, division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. Such a separation limits arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering...

www.britannica.com

 

[Dreyga_King of Sherbums]

I respect you said 'respectfully,' and will reply with the same respect.

The Supreme Court has no enforcement over foreign policy. That's exclusively under the executive branch's authority.
They cannot command the executive branch, which has authority over foreign policy, to carry out commands made by the Supreme Court.

"separation of powers, division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. Such a separation, it has been argued, limits the possibility of arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering of laws."

Separation of powers | Definition & Facts | Britannica

Separation of powers, division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. Such a separation limits arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering...

www.britannica.com

Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful. I appreciate that.

However, your interpretation of separation of powers and the role of the Supreme Court in this matter is legally problematic and doesn’t reflect how the U.S. government actually functions in practice—particularly when it comes to domestic enforcement of constitutional rights, even within the context of foreign policy.

You're absolutely right that foreign policy broadly falls under the authority of the executive branch. But this case isn’t about negotiating treaties or recognizing foreign governments—it’s about whether the executive branch violated the constitutional rights of a person under U.S. jurisdiction. That distinction matters.

The Supreme Court absolutely has the authority to review the legality of executive actions, including those related to immigration and deportation, and to rule when those actions violate the Constitution or statutory law. This is not hypothetical—this is established legal doctrine, going back centuries. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court established judicial review, which gives it the authority to interpret the Constitution and invalidate actions from the executive or legislative branches that conflict with it.

More specifically, in cases like Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court ruled that non-citizens held at Guantanamo Bay—outside U.S. borders—were still entitled to constitutional protections such as habeas corpus. So the idea that a person must be a citizen or on U.S. soil to receive protection is incorrect. What matters is whether the U.S. government is exercising power over them. In García’s case, he was detained and deported by U.S. authorities, which puts the entire matter squarely under U.S. legal jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court does not “command” the executive branch in the sense of micro-managing policy. But when the Court determines that the executive branch has violated the Constitution or failed to comply with federal law, it issues a binding ruling. Compliance with such a ruling is not optional. It's a core principle of the separation of powers that each branch must operate within constitutional limits, and judicial decisions interpreting those limits are enforceable—even when they implicate executive functions.

This is why your citation of separation of powers, while accurate in its general intent, is being misapplied here. Separation of powers doesn't mean each branch operates in isolation. It means that each branch acts as a check on the others. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law. When it rules that the executive has overstepped or broken the law, the executive is constitutionally obligated to respond accordingly.

So yes, the Supreme Court cannot dictate El Salvador’s actions. But it can rule that the United States unlawfully deported someone and order the government to remedy that violation. And refusing to comply with that ruling would be a direct breach of constitutional order—not an assertion of executive authority.

Respectfully, that’s why this issue is not just about foreign policy—it’s about whether our own government follows its own laws.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I respect you said 'respectfully,' and will reply with the same respect.

The Supreme Court has no enforcement over foreign policy. That's exclusively under the executive branch's authority.
They cannot command the executive branch, which has authority over foreign policy, to carry out commands made by the Supreme Court.

"separation of powers, division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. Such a separation, it has been argued, limits the possibility of arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering of laws."

Separation of powers | Definition & Facts | Britannica

Separation of powers, division of the legislative, executive, and judicial functions of government among separate and independent bodies. Such a separation limits arbitrary excesses by government, since the sanction of all three branches is required for the making, executing, and administering...

www.britannica.com

The SC doesn't have "enforcement" over anything. They rule on constitutionality. Unfortunately, the current court has used their legitimate purpose to co-opt the other branches; this case with Garcia, etc is, however, not an example of that.

 

[DoctorTaco]

Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful. I appreciate that.

However, your interpretation of separation of powers and the role of the Supreme Court in this matter is legally problematic and doesn’t reflect how the U.S. government actually functions in practice—particularly when it comes to domestic enforcement of constitutional rights, even within the context of foreign policy.

You're absolutely right that foreign policy broadly falls under the authority of the executive branch. But this case isn’t about negotiating treaties or recognizing foreign governments—it’s about whether the executive branch violated the constitutional rights of a person under U.S. jurisdiction. That distinction matters.

The Supreme Court absolutely has the authority to review the legality of executive actions, including those related to immigration and deportation, and to rule when those actions violate the Constitution or statutory law. This is not hypothetical—this is established legal doctrine, going back centuries. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court established judicial review, which gives it the authority to interpret the Constitution and invalidate actions from the executive or legislative branches that conflict with it.

More specifically, in cases like Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court ruled that non-citizens held at Guantanamo Bay—outside U.S. borders—were still entitled to constitutional protections such as habeas corpus. So the idea that a person must be a citizen or on U.S. soil to receive protection is incorrect. What matters is whether the U.S. government is exercising power over them. In García’s case, he was detained and deported by U.S. authorities, which puts the entire matter squarely under U.S. legal jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court does not “command” the executive branch in the sense of micro-managing policy. But when the Court determines that the executive branch has violated the Constitution or failed to comply with federal law, it issues a binding ruling. Compliance with such a ruling is not optional. It's a core principle of the separation of powers that each branch must operate within constitutional limits, and judicial decisions interpreting those limits are enforceable—even when they implicate executive functions.

This is why your citation of separation of powers, while accurate in its general intent, is being misapplied here. Separation of powers doesn't mean each branch operates in isolation. It means that each branch acts as a check on the others. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law. When it rules that the executive has overstepped or broken the law, the executive is constitutionally obligated to respond accordingly.

So yes, the Supreme Court cannot dictate El Salvador’s actions. But it can rule that the United States unlawfully deported someone and order the government to remedy that violation. And refusing to comply with that ruling would be a direct breach of constitutional order—not an assertion of executive authority.

Respectfully, that’s why this issue is not just about foreign policy—it’s about whether our own government follows its own laws.

You're confused about how the law works. No immigration judge ever ruled that Kilmar García is MS-13. That’s just false. One judge actually granted him withholding of removal—which literally means they found he was in danger if deported. That wouldn’t happen if he was confirmed to be a gang member.

DHS accused him of gang ties based on a police report, but the officer who made that claim didn’t testify. That matters—because under U.S. law, especially in immigration court, evidence like that is considered hearsay unless the person who made it can be cross-examined. The judge threw it out for that exact reason.

Also, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that his deportation was illegal and that the government has to bring him back. That decision overrides everything else. So no—there is no legal ruling that he’s MS-13. You’re mixing up accusations with legal findings. That’s not how our justice system works.

People think two judges found him to be MS-13 because they’re confusing accusations with rulings, taking DHS’s word as gospel, and ignoring how the legal system actually works. The truth is: no judge ever ruled that Kilmar García was MS-13. On the contrary, the Supreme Court ruled the government violated the law in deporting him.

I understand where you're coming from, but respectfully, there are a few legal misunderstandings in your statement that are important to clarify.


The U.S. Supreme Court does not and cannot exert jurisdiction over El Salvador. That’s absolutely true. However, the Court does have jurisdiction over the actions of the United States government, particularly when it comes to constitutional rights and compliance with immigration law. In Kilmar Ábrego García’s case, the issue was not about what El Salvador chose to do—it was about whether the U.S. government violated its own laws by deporting someone who had legal protections in place.

Mr. García was granted withholding of removal by an immigration judge in 2019 under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This is a legal protection given to individuals who can demonstrate they are more likely than not to face persecution if returned to their home country. That means, under U.S. law, he could not be deported to El Salvador unless new legal grounds were presented and adjudicated. That did not happen.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that his deportation violated due process. The government was ordered to facilitate his return—not because the Court has control over El Salvador, but because it has authority over what our executive agencies can and cannot do. That decision has been widely reported, including by the Associated Press and New York Magazine, and stands as binding precedent. This is not a political talking point—it is a matter of constitutional law.

Regarding the gang allegations, no judge ever formally determined that Mr. García was MS-13. The claim was made by DHS, citing a local police field interview sheet, but the officer who authored the report was never present for cross-examination. Because of that, the immigration judge excluded the evidence. In legal terms, it was inadmissible hearsay, and without the opportunity to challenge it, the court could not treat it as reliable. This is a basic due process protection built into both immigration proceedings and the broader American legal tradition.

Lastly, Mr. García was not in the country illegally. He entered the United States as a minor asylum seeker and, at the time of his removal, had lawful presence under the protection of a federal court order. Conflating “undocumented” with “illegal” ignores the legal nuance of asylum, withholding of removal, and ongoing proceedings.

This case is not about hero-worship or political point-scoring. It’s about whether we—as a nation of laws—will honor court rulings, constitutional protections, and the legal standards that apply to everyone. If we believe in the rule of law, then we have to follow it, even when it’s inconvenient. That’s what makes the system worth defending.

 

[fortheo]

.....
Also, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that his deportation was illegal and that the government has to bring him back. That decision overrides everything else. So no—there is no legal ruling that he’s MS-13. You’re mixing up accusations with legal findings. That’s not how our justice system works.
.....

That one sentence alone pretty much sums it up.

Van Hollen has been doing a good deed, regardless of whether the guy is guilty or not. You need the rule of law, and transparency. If not, then anyone could just be taken in a black van and silenced.


Due process. Have a trial in america, and send him back. You can't just skip legal proceedings and send people to El Salvador.

It's even worse than skipping due process and sending people to el salvador -- they're skipping due process and sending them to a notorious prison in el savador. I don't understand how people can't see how this precedent is extremely dangerous.

 

[Mike]

What a shitshow... well it must be americans desire as I don't see you fuckers doing anything to stop this nonsense.

I love when people are like well you guys voted. for this. Yeah since Obama we've been given nothing but shit candidates that are openly corrupt and in the pocket of the corporations.

From both the left and the right. And voting third party is the same as not voting at all. The systems rigged in a way where there's nothing we can do if both major parties are corrupt. And they have been for decades now.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

DoctorTaco, its no surprise to anyone you either didn't know of or misunderstood Seperation Of Powers.

As a documented leftist who backs the party 'of Democracy' who claims everything is a threat to it, you apparently want unelected judges to have absolute authority over elected officials.

 

[GearSolidMetal]

Thank you for keeping the discussion respectful. I appreciate that.

However, your interpretation of separation of powers and the role of the Supreme Court in this matter is legally problematic and doesn’t reflect how the U.S. government actually functions in practice—particularly when it comes to domestic enforcement of constitutional rights, even within the context of foreign policy.

You're absolutely right that foreign policy broadly falls under the authority of the executive branch. But this case isn’t about negotiating treaties or recognizing foreign governments—it’s about whether the executive branch violated the constitutional rights of a person under U.S. jurisdiction. That distinction matters.

The Supreme Court absolutely has the authority to review the legality of executive actions, including those related to immigration and deportation, and to rule when those actions violate the Constitution or statutory law. This is not hypothetical—this is established legal doctrine, going back centuries. In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Court established judicial review, which gives it the authority to interpret the Constitution and invalidate actions from the executive or legislative branches that conflict with it.

More specifically, in cases like Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court ruled that non-citizens held at Guantanamo Bay—outside U.S. borders—were still entitled to constitutional protections such as habeas corpus. So the idea that a person must be a citizen or on U.S. soil to receive protection is incorrect. What matters is whether the U.S. government is exercising power over them. In García’s case, he was detained and deported by U.S. authorities, which puts the entire matter squarely under U.S. legal jurisdiction.

Furthermore, the Court does not “command” the executive branch in the sense of micro-managing policy. But when the Court determines that the executive branch has violated the Constitution or failed to comply with federal law, it issues a binding ruling. Compliance with such a ruling is not optional. It's a core principle of the separation of powers that each branch must operate within constitutional limits, and judicial decisions interpreting those limits are enforceable—even when they implicate executive functions.

This is why your citation of separation of powers, while accurate in its general intent, is being misapplied here. Separation of powers doesn't mean each branch operates in isolation. It means that each branch acts as a check on the others. The Supreme Court’s role is to interpret the law. When it rules that the executive has overstepped or broken the law, the executive is constitutionally obligated to respond accordingly.

So yes, the Supreme Court cannot dictate El Salvador’s actions. But it can rule that the United States unlawfully deported someone and order the government to remedy that violation. And refusing to comply with that ruling would be a direct breach of constitutional order—not an assertion of executive authority.

Respectfully, that’s why this issue is not just about foreign policy—it’s about whether our own government follows its own laws.

So the Supreme Court basically put a stop to further deportations like 'Maryland Father.'

Okay, fine.
No problem with that.
Maybe his 'due process' was rushed a bit, but it would have eventually happened.

As for the 'Supreme Court orders Executive Branch to return El Salvador man back to America' let's look at some details of that story, from the always reliable CNN.

"The Supreme Court on Thursday required President Donald Trump’s administration to “facilitate” the return of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador but stopped short of requiring the government to return him to the United States."

MSN

So 'Facilitate' meaning Trump asked the El Salvador Preaident if he wanted that MS-13 gang member to be released back to America, and the El Salvador President replied "LOL no."

Thanks Supreme Court, you're super effective.

 

[fortheo]

So the Supreme Court basically put a stop to further deportations like 'Maryland Father.'

Okay, fine.
No problem with that.
Maybe his 'due process' was rushed a bit, but it would have eventually happened.

As for the 'Supreme Court orders Executive Branch to return El Salvador man back to America' let's look at some details of that story, from the always reliable CNN.

"The Supreme Court on Thursday required President Donald Trump’s administration to “facilitate” the return of a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador but stopped short of requiring the government to return him to the United States."

MSN

So 'Facilitate' meaning Trump asked the El Salvador Preaident if he wanted that MS-13 gang member to be released back to America, and the El Salvador President replied "LOL no."

Thanks Supreme Court, you're super effictive.

Pretty sure the trump admin knew that that didn't constitute "facilitating" garcia's return to the US, which is why they appealed the judge's order to facilitate his return. They of course lost that appeal on thursday and were heavily criticized by the judge.

 

[DEVILsSON]

.

High ranking MS 13 hanging out at Home Depot looking for work?

10D chess bro. Where's the last place ICE would look for him? Exactly!