![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/lakelandgazette.info\/news\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/Chief-Justice-John-Roberts.webp?resize=275%2C183&ssl=1\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nChief Justice John Roberts entered the stay on April 7, pausing a Maryland district judge\u2019s ruling that ordered the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to bring Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego-Garcia back to the United States by 11:59 p.m. April 7.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The stay, which will remain in effect pending further action by Roberts or the full court, also requires Abrego-Garcia\u2019s legal team to file a response by 5 p.m. on April 8.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The order was issued in response to an emergency application<\/a> the Trump administration filed with the Supreme Court earlier on Monday. The application requested the high court to block U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis\u2019 April 4 order<\/a> requiring the government to bring back Abrego-Garcia. The judge found that the government had violated a 2019 immigration ruling that barred his removal to El Salvador due to credible threats from the rival Barrio 18 gang. The 2019 ruling was made after Abrego-Garcia was arrested in Maryland and placed in deportation proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Abrego-Garcia entered the United States illegally in about 2011.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the 2019 ruling, Abrego-Garcia was arrested on March 12 by Homeland Security Investigations, a division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Officials cited what they described as his \u201cprominent role\u201d in the MS-13 gang, which the Trump administration had recently designated a foreign terrorist organization. He was placed on a deportation flight three days later, on March 15.<\/p>\n\n\n\n According to ICE official Robert Cerna II, Abrego-Garcia had not been on the original manifest for the flight but was listed as an alternate. As other individuals were removed from the flight, Abrego-Garcia\u2019s name was moved up, and he was added to the final passenger list. The manifest, Cerna added, failed to indicate that Abrego-Garcia had legal protection from removal to El Salvador.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThrough administrative error, Abrego-Garcia was removed from the United States to El Salvador,\u201d Cerna said in the filing. \u201cThis was an oversight, and the removal was carried out in good faith based on the existence of a final order of removal and Abrego-Garcia\u2019s purported membership in MS-13.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Abrego-Garcia\u2019s lawyers have argued that there is no credible evidence linking him to MS-13.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In an April 6 opinion denying the government\u2019s motion to stay her April 4 order, Xinis appeared to agree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDefendants have claimed\u2014without any evidence\u2014that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 and then housed him among the chief rival gang, Barrio 18,\u201d she wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Xinis also rejected the administration\u2019s claim that the court had overstepped its authority, finding that Abrego-Garcia\u2019s deportation was illegal and that the government could not now avoid responsibility by claiming that it lacked the power to correct the mistake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHaving confessed grievous error, the Defendants now argue that this Court lacks the power to hear this case, and they lack the power to order Abrego Garcia\u2019s return,\u201d she wrote. \u201cTo avoid clear irreparable harm, and because equity and justice compels it, the Court grants the narrowest, daresay only, relief warranted: to order that Defendants return Abrego Garcia to the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n On April 5, the Justice Department asked the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to pause Xinis\u2019s order, filing an emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and an immediate administrative stay. The court denied<\/a> both requests on April 7, prompting the Trump administration to turn to the Supreme Court in an effort to block the order before the midnight deadline.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its filing, the Trump administration warned of sweeping consequences if the lower court\u2019s ruling were allowed to stand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe United States cannot guarantee success in sensitive international negotiations in advance, least of all when a court imposes an absurdly compressed, mandatory deadline,\u201d the government wrote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n