‘That cannot be — and is not — the rule of law’: Federal judges demolish Trump’s deportation scheme in scathing ruling

A divided appellate panel on Monday rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to lift an order requiring the government to facilitate the return of a wrongfully deported migrant from El Salvador. The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit concerns a Venezuelan national identified by the pseudonym “Cristian” in court documents, who was deported to El Salvador in March before his asylum application could be decided.

According to MSNBC, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher had ordered the government to facilitate Cristian’s return so his asylum application could be properly processed in the United States. Cristian was part of a 2019 class action lawsuit brought by people who arrived in the U.S. as unaccompanied minors and sought asylum, with the plaintiffs requesting their applications be decided while they remained in the country.

Despite a settlement in the case, the government deported Cristian along with others before resolving his application. According to his lawyers, he is currently being held in Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), a Salvadoran prison known for human rights violations. The Trump administration sought to have Gallagher’s order lifted while their appeal proceeded, citing President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members.

Judges criticize government’s ‘deafening silence’ on asylum determination timing

Government lawyers argued that Trump’s use of the 1798 act meant they didn’t need to wait for a decision on Cristian’s asylum application before removing him, and that facilitating his return would cause “irreparable harm” by undermining presidential authority under the wartime act.

The appellate panel majority rejected this argument, noting it ignores the Supreme Court’s ruling in the similar case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, which approved another judge’s order requiring return facilitation.

The panel majority, consisting of Judges DeAndrea Gist Benjamin and Roger Gregory, specifically called out the government’s attempt to demonstrate that Cristian would lose his asylum claim anyway through an “Indicative Asylum Decision.” The judges pointed out this decision was made five days after Judge Gallagher ordered the government to facilitate Cristian’s return, with his lawyers describing it as a “litigation-driven” document created solely for this case. The majority noted the government had “no response to this charge — a deafening silence.”

In a separate opinion, Judge Gregory directly criticized Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, writing that “the government’s argument in this case is that this plainly invalid invocation of the Act can be used to void any and all contractual obligations of the federal government. That cannot be — and is not — the rule of law.” This assessment joins a growing consensus among judges nationwide who have largely deemed Trump’s invocation invalid, though the Supreme Court has not yet ruled definitively on its legality.

Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that while district courts have various options to address unlawful deportations, “directing diplomatic negotiations to the Executive Branch is not among them.” If the administration pursues this case to the Supreme Court, this reasoning could feature prominently in their application for emergency relief. The current ruling represents another setback for the administration’s immigration policies, particularly regarding the use of the Alien Enemies Act as justification for expedited deportations without completing asylum proceedings.