Noem v. Abrego Garcia

_________________
_________________
1 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 24A949
KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY,
ET AL. v. KILMAR
ARMANDO ABREGO GARCIA,
ET AL.
ON APPLICATION TO VACATE INJUNCTION ENTERED BY THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND
[April 10, 2025]
On March 15, 2025, the United States removed Kilmar
Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States to El Sal-
vador, where he is currently detained in the Center for Ter-
rorism Confinement (CECOT). The United States acknowl-
edges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding
order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the
removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal. The United
States represents that the removal to El Salvador was the
result of an “administrative error.” The United States al-
leges, however, that Abrego Garcia has been found to be a
member of the gang MS–13, a designated foreign terrorist
organization, and that his return to the United States
would pose a threat to the public. Abrego Garcia responds
that he is not a member of MS–13, and that he has lived
safely in the United States with his family for a decade and
has never been charged with a crime.
On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Gov-
ernment to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego
Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on
Monday, April 7.” On the morning of April 7, the United
States filed this application to vacate the District Court’s
order. T
HE CHIEF JUSTICE entered an administrative stay

2 NOEM v. ABREGO GARCIA
Statement of S
OTOMAYOR, J.
and subsequently referred the application to the Court.
The application is granted in part and denied in part,
subject to the direction of this order. Due to the adminis-
trative stay issued by T
HE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline im-
posed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent,
the Government’s emergency application is effectively
granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is
no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order
remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The
order properly 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 to El Salvador. The intended
scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order
is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s
authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,
with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive
Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the
Government should be prepared to share what it can con-
cerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further
steps. The order heretofore entered by T
HE CHIEF JUSTICE
is vacated.
Statement of J
USTICE SOTOMAYOR, with whom JUSTICE
KAGAN and JUSTICE JACKSON join, respecting the Court’s
disposition of the application.
The United States Government arrested Kilmar Ar-
mando Abrego Garcia in Maryland and flew him to a “ter-
rorism confinement center” in El Salvador, where he has
been detained for 26 days and counting. To this day, the
Government has cited no basis in law for Abrego Garcia’s
warrantless arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his con-
finement in a Salvadoran prison. Nor could it. The Gov-
ernment remains bound by an Immigration Judge’s 2019
order expressly prohibiting Abrego Garcia’s removal to El

3 Cite as: 604 U. S. ____ (2025)
Statement of S
OTOMAYOR, J.
Salvador because he faced a “clear probability of future per-
secution” there and “demonstrated that [El Salvador’s] au-
thorities were and would be unable or unwilling to protect
him.” App. to Application To Vacate Injunction 13a. The
Government has not challenged the validity of that order.
Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the
Government dismissed it as an “oversight.” Decl. of R.
Cerna in No. 25–cv–951 (D Md., Mar. 31, 2025), ECF Doc.
11–3, p. 3. The Government now requests an order from
this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband
and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran
prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argu-
ment the Government offers in support of its request, that
United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee
crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Pa-
dilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v.
Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008). The Government’s argu-
ment, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcer-
ate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal con-
sequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.
See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025)
(S
OTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8). That view re-
futes itself.
Because every factor governing requests for equitable re-
lief manifestly weighs against the Government, Nken v.
Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 426 (2009), I would have declined to
intervene in this litigation and denied the application in
full.
Nevertheless, I agree with the Court’s order that the
proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the pro-
cess to which he would have been entitled had he not been
unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Gov-
ernment must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego
Garcia with “due process of law,” including notice and an
opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings. Reno v.
Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). It must also comply with

4 NOEM v. ABREGO GARCIA
Statement of S
OTOMAYOR, J.
its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. See
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S.
Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Federal law
governing detention and removal of immigrants continues,
of course, to be binding as well. See 8 U. S. C. §1226(a) (re-
quiring a warrant before a noncitizen “may be arrested and
detained pending a decision” on removal); 8 CFR
§287.8(c)(2)(ii) (2024) (requiring same); see also 8 CFR
§241.4(l) (in order to revoke conditional release, the Gov-
ernment must provide adequate notice and “promptly” ar-
range an “initial informal interview . . . to afford the alien
an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation
stated in the notification”). Moreover, it has been the Gov-
ernment’s own well-established policy to “facilitate [an] al-
ien’s return to the United States if . . . the alien’s presence
is necessary for continued administrative removal proceed-
ings” in cases where a noncitizen has been removed pending
immigration proceedings. See U. S. Immigration and Cus-
toms Enforcement, Directive 11061.1, Facilitating the Re-
turn to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Al-
iens, §2 (Feb. 24, 2012).
In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should
continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obli-
gations to follow the law.