Deportation Without Due Process: U.S. Man Deported To El Salvador

Jaxon Carey

Staff Writer

On March 12, Kilmar Abrego Garcia was taken by U.S. immigration officials and was officially deported to El Salvador on March 15. CBS News further reports that the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stated that it was an “administrative error” that facilitated Garcia’s accidental deportation.

The controversy stems from Gracia being a legal resident of the United States. He holds a federal permit to work in the United States and is protected by a 2019 court order that explicitly barred Garcia from ever being sent back to El Salvador. The Trump administration, however, alleges that Garcia is an active member of MS-13 according to the The Associated Press.

Politico notes that critics continue to cite due process and rule of law, both of which have been upended by the Trump administration’s deportation of Garcia. NBC News finds that Garcia’s lawyers have argued that the government “has never produced an iota of evidence to support this unfounded allegation.” Despite this, and despite Garcia never being convicted in any court or on any document, Vice President JD Vance posted on X that “My comment is that according to the court document you apparently didn’t read he was a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here.”

The court document that JD Vance is potentially referring to, as he never cites which document contains the information, is most likely a document involved in the 2019 court proceeding titled “gang field interview sheet.” NBC News, details how this document, used by the police and involved in Garcia’s 2019 court proceeding, lists the police had a “reliable confidential source.” This document, not officially produced by the court and only used by the police, did not hold up in court against Garcia. BBC News notes that Judge Paula Xinix has labeled this document as a “singular unsubstantiated allegation” that didn’t hold up in court the first time.

The utilization of this document by the Trump administration to condemn and then deport Garcia brings with it questions about the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Legal Information Institute defines the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment as prohibiting anyone from being prosecuted twice for the same crime. Gracia, who has already been found innocent of MS-13 connections in court the first time, is being condemned without trial and was deported for the same alleged crime. Additionally, the power of the judiciary branch is now under question.

This condemnation also comes with a promise from the Trump administration that Garcia will never live in the United States again. BBC News reports on how despite a judge ordering the Trump administration to secure Garcia’s return to the United States, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt has stated that “If he [García] ever ends up back in the United States, he would immediately be deported again. He will never live in the United States of America.”

Additionally, the case of Garcia is not only a one-time error. ABC News reports that U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher has ordered the Trump administration to return another deported migrant who had a court settlement that was similar to Garcia’s. She is quoted as saying “like Judge [Paula] Xinis in the Abrego Garcia matter, this court will order Defendants to facilitate Cristian’s return to the United States so that he can receive the process he was entitled to under the parties’ binding Settlement Agreement.”

While the deportations are sparking controversy on both sides, and both the Trump administration and its critics are digging in their heels, Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-MD visited Garcia. NPR quotes Van Hollen as having two takes on the controversy. Firstly, that the documents referenced by the Trump Administration need to be tested in the court before anyone can be proclaimed guilty. Secondly, that “I think voters support the idea of making sure that we respect constitutional rights because if we deny them for one person, they could be next,” Van Hollen argues that no matter who you think Garcia is and no matter what side of the aisle you’re on, this is first and foremost an argument of constitutional rights and the role of the courts.

Image courtesy of Getty Images.