donald trump supreme court,Sides With Wrongly Deported Migrant
Hubnews1 – Donald Trump Supreme court,Sides With Wrongly Deported Migrants The US Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to make way for the return of a Maryland man who was erroneously deported to a mega-jail in El Salvador.
The Trump administration has admitted that Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported as a result of an “administrative error”, but appealed against a district court’s directive to “facilitate and effectuate” his return to the US.
On Thursday, in a 9-0 decision, Supreme Court justices refused to stay the lower court’s order.
That order “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”, the justices decided.
Mr Garcia, a Salvadorian migrant, is among dozens of migrants the US put on military flights last month and sent to El Salvador’s notorious Cecot (Centre for the Confinement of Terrorism) – a prison that hosts gang members – under a deal between the two nations.
In a statement late on Thursday evening following the ruling by the high court, Mr Garcia’s lawyer Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg indicated “the rule of law prevailed”.
“The Supreme Court maintained the district judge’s ruling that the government must bring Kilmar back home.”
READ MORE: brooke taylor fox news:Trump-backed bill to stop ‘rogue’ judges passes House
Can the US bring back a man deported to El Salvador? Immigration attorneys believe so
In its emergency appeal to the Supreme Court last week, the Donald Trump administration claimed that Judge Paula Xinis of the Maryland district court did not have the authority to make the order to return Mr Garcia by 23:59 EST last Monday, and that US officials could not force El Salvador to send back Mr Garcia.
US Solicitor General D John Sauer authored in his emergency court document: “The Constitution tasks the president, and not federal district courts, with conducting foreign diplomacy and defending the nation against foreign terrorists, including by bringing about their removal.”
On Monday, the Supreme Court suspended temporarily Judge Xinis’s order as it weighed the issue, before making the ruling on Thursday.
The highest court also told Judge Xinis, on Thursday, to clarify her original directive, i.e., to what extent she asked the Trump administration to “effectuate” Mr Garcia’s return and noted she may have gone beyond her mandate.
“The district court ought to elucidate its order, due regard being had for the deference to which the executive is entitled in conducting foreign affairs,” said the Supreme Court.
A spokesperson for the justice department explained to the BBC that the Supreme Court rightly identified “it is the exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs”.
“By explicitly stating the deference due to the executive branch, this decision again shows that activist judges do not have the authority to take over the president’s power to make foreign policy.”
The government stated that Mr Garcia was deported as a result of an “administrative error”, though they also claim he is an MS-13 gang member, which his attorney disputes.
The case will proceed back to the trial court. The justices did not provide the administration with a deadline as to when Mr Garcia is to be returned.
Mr Garcia, aged 29 now, crossed illegally into the US as a youth from El Salvador. He was arrested with three other men in Maryland in 2019 and held by federal immigration officials.
An immigration judge, however, gave him shelter from deportation based on the reasoning that he could be persecuted by local gangs back home.
Married to an American citizen, Mr Garcia was deported on March 15 even after a court ordered him not to be.
His wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, has been demanding his release ever since his deportation.
“This is still an emotional roller coaster for my kids, Kilmar’s mother, his brother and siblings,” Ms Sura told the New York Times on Thursday, going on to add that “I will continue fighting until my husband is home”.
Trump threatens tariffs and sanctions on Mexico for ‘stealing’ water from Texas farmers
Donald Trump warns tariffs and sanctions on Mexico for ‘water theft’ from Texas farmers President Donald Trump warned Mexico of tariffs, and even sanctions, if it continues to steal Rio Grande water from South Texas farmers under a treaty in existence for decades.
On Thursday, in a post on Truth Social, Trump declared that Mexico owes Texas 1.3 million acre-feet of water under the 1944 Water Treaty, although Mexico was in breach of their obligation.
“This is extremely unfair, and it is hurting South Texas Farmers terribly,” the president wrote. “The only Sugar Mill in Texas SHUT DOWN last year, because Mexico has been stealing water from Texas Farmers. Ted Cruz has been fighting the battle to get South Texas the water it is entitled to, but Sleepy Joe wouldn’t lift a finger to assist the Farmers. THAT
Donald Trump went on to say he will ensure that Mexico does not break treaties with the U.S. and damage farmers in Texas.
Just last month, I suspended water deliveries to Tijuana until Mexico adheres to the 1944 Water Treaty,” he stated. “My Sec of Ag, Brooke Rollins, is fighting for Texas Farmers, and we will continue ratcheting up repercussions, including TARIFFS and, perhaps even SANCTIONS, until Mexico respects the Treaty, and GIVES TEXAS THE WATER THEY ARE ENTITLED TO!”
Texas agriculture organizations threatened a disastrous season in front of them for sugar and citrus, in one case, as Mexican and U.S. officials attempted to break an impasse over the 1944 water treaty that provides critical irrigation to U.S. farmers.
The two nations have sparred over the treaty in the past but the water shortages caused by the drought were the worst in about 30 years.
According to the water-sharing treaty, Mexico must deliver 1.75 million acre-feet of Rio Grande water to the U.S. over the course of a five-year cycle.
Texas’s half-billion-dollar citrus crop is vitally dependent on Mexican water, particularly with worsening droughts plaguing the area. Indeed, Texas is the third-largest citrus state after California and Florida.
A week ago, the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs tweeted that it was rejecting a petition from Mexico to ship water to Tijuana.
“Mexico’s persistent shortfalls in its water deliveries under the 1944 water-sharing treaty are killing off American agriculture — specifically farmers in the Rio Grande valley,” the agency
READ MORE:Trump admin cuts $4M in Princeton funding related to climate research
posted to X. “Because of that, today for the first time, the U.S. will turn down Mexico’s non-treaty request for a special delivery channel for Colorado River water to be delivered to Tijuana.”
Yesterday, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas., indicated that South Texas was under water stress, which he referred to as a “man-made crisis.”
He also explained that he was at the forefront of the battle in the Senate to force Mexico to be responsible and comply with the treaty to supply water to farmers in South Texas.
He reposted the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs post, terming the action, “excellent.”
“As I mentioned yesterday, this is the option the Trump administration must use to get Mexico to abide by the 1944 Water Treaty,” Cruz posted on X. “Texas farmers are in crisis due to Mexico’s failure to comply. I will work with the Donald Trump administration to get Mexico to comply and get water to Texas farmers.”
FAQ:
Q: What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case involving a wrongly deported migrant under the Trump administration?
A: In a 2023 decision (Pereida v. Wilkinson), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Biden administration’s argument that a migrant, Clemente Pereida, should not face deportation due to a past minor criminal record. However, in a separate case (Niz-Chavez v. Garland, 2021), the Court sided with a migrant who argued he was wrongly deported because the Trump administration failed to provide proper legal notices.
Q: How did the Trump administration’s policies affect these cases?
A: The Trump administration enforced stricter immigration policies, leading to increased deportations. In Niz-Chavez, the Court found that the government violated procedural rules by not sending a single, comprehensive deportation notice. This ruling reinforced due process rights for migrants.
Q: Did the Supreme Court always rule against Trump’s immigration policies?
A: No. The Court had mixed rulings—sometimes upholding Trump policies (like the “remain in Mexico” policy) and other times striking them down (like attempts to end DACA). The Niz-Chavez decision was one where the Court ruled against procedural failures in deportation cases.
Q: What does this mean for future immigration cases?
A: These rulings highlight the importance of proper legal procedures in deportation cases. Even under strict enforcement, courts can side with migrants if their due process rights are violated.
For further details, consult official court rulings or reputable legal analysis sources.
donald trump,supreme court,trump,supreme court sides with wrongly deported,president donald trump,supreme court trump decision,supreme court rules against trump,supreme court migrants,trump administration,wrongly deported,president trump,supreme court rules that detained immigrants,supreme court el salvador deportation,trump immigration policy,supreme court deportation,supreme court deportations,supreme court mass deportation
Copyright hubnews1 Recorder, 2025
