A federal court wants a deported Salvadoran man back in the U.S., but the DOJ says the order oversteps its bounds. Now the case is pitting courts against the executive branch in a fight over immigration and constitutional power.
Key Facts:
- Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, was deported in March due to an ICE administrative error.
- He is accused of being an MS-13 gang member and is currently held in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center.
- A federal judge ordered the U.S. to “facilitate and effectuate” his return, which DOJ argues only means clearing domestic barriers.
- The DOJ claims the courts lack authority to direct foreign affairs or demand coordination with El Salvador.
- The Supreme Court requested the lower court clarify its language, warning it may have overstepped its authority.
The Rest of the Story: DOJ Pushes Back on Judicial Overreach
The Department of Justice is pushing back against a federal court order that demands the U.S. government bring back Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a deported Salvadoran national alleged to be part of MS-13.
The DOJ says the court’s order misinterprets the term “facilitate,” which in legal and immigration contexts refers to removing domestic obstacles, not forcing diplomatic action abroad.
According to court filings, Abrego Garcia was deported despite a judge previously granting him temporary protection from removal.
ICE later acknowledged the error, but stated he was no longer eligible for protection due to alleged MS-13 ties.
The DOJ insists that while the government should allow for his return if possible, the judiciary cannot compel negotiations or actions involving foreign sovereigns.
The Supreme Court partially sided with the DOJ by asking the lower court to clarify whether its language, specifically the word “effectuate,” went beyond its authority.
The high court stressed the importance of respecting the Executive Branch’s role in foreign affairs.
Biden’s FBI and DOJ were raiding the home of Biden’s top political opponent and jailing pro-lifers.
Trump’s FBI and DOJ are doing pre-dawn raids and capturing MS-13 leaders.
They are not the same. pic.twitter.com/rompfRwS6X
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) March 27, 2025
Commentary: Why This Fight Over Government Authority Matters
This case is about more than one man.
It’s about maintaining the proper balance of power between the branches of government.
The courts are getting dangerously close to overstepping their bounds.
The Constitution is clear: the Executive Branch conducts foreign policy, not federal judges from Maryland.
The DOJ is right to push back.
When the Supreme Court uses language like “facilitate” instead of “force” or “demand,” it’s for a reason.
Courts can’t tell the Executive to negotiate with El Salvador or dictate how international custody transfers should work.
That’s a direct threat to the separation of powers.
No one should want to see a suspected MS-13 member brought back to the U.S.—especially one who’s already been detained in a high-security anti-terror prison in El Salvador.
His wife being a U.S. citizen doesn’t change the danger he may pose or erase his ties to a violent gang now listed as a foreign terrorist organization.
Letting judges override immigration enforcement decisions and international security measures is a fast track to chaos.
What’s next?
Court-ordered extractions from foreign jails?
The judiciary’s job is to interpret laws—not to play diplomat or override national security decisions.
This fight is part of a bigger problem.
The unelected federal judiciary is increasingly acting like a fourth branch of government, using rulings to challenge or even reverse executive actions.
That’s not just bad policy—it borders on a soft coup against elected leadership.
If we want secure borders, lawful immigration, and respect for our system of government, we can’t let rogue courts dictate U.S. foreign policy under the guise of “facilitation.”
President Trump was elected to make these calls.
The courts need to get out of the way.
The Bottom Line: Constitutional Authority and Foreign Policy at Stake
The DOJ is defending the Executive Branch’s constitutional role in foreign affairs and immigration enforcement.
Courts are trying to expand their power beyond interpreting laws into directing international actions.
This dispute shows why clear lines of authority matter—especially when national security and lawful governance are at stake.
Read Next
– Kamala Harris Gets Brutally Mocked After Revealing Her New Career Plans
– New Report Shows Massive Difference Between Trump’s Cabinet Meetings and Biden’s
– Federal Judge Issues Decision in Major DOGE Case
– Florida Teacher Gets the Worst News Ever After Defying Parents Over Student’s Preferred Name