Nothing better encapsulates today’s toxic mix of bad policy, worse media narratives, and extreme paranoia than the stories of The Maryland Man. You might be thinking, “Pat, the weird stories are always about a ‘Florida Man,'” and you would be right. But you know exactly who I am talking about.
One narrative goes like this: an innocent Maryland man, husband to an American wife and father to an American child, in the country legally for ten years, was arrested in a sweep by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He was spirited off the streets while on his way to work, never to see his wife and children again. He disappeared into the deportation machine, until his wife identified him by tattoos as one of the “terrorist gang members” deported to El Salvador (mistakenly) and locked up in their maximum security prison. It is an offense to justice, due process, and humanity, all in one.
The other narrative says the man was a convicted member of MS-13, had come to the country illegally under false pretenses, was arrested at a gang meeting, had MS-13 membership tattoos, and now is out of the country where he no longer poses any threat to Americans.
Need I remind you that the term “narrative” could be simply defined as a story you want to believe. In this case, both narratives have some facts and many fallacies. Neither is true in any real sense of that word. “Let’s go to the videotape” as Warner Wolfe used to say.
The Maryland Man’s name is Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia (hereafter “Garcia”). He came to the United States at age sixteen in 2011 from El Salvador, crossing the border illegally (a fact not in dispute). He lived here for eight years before being detained in a police raid of suspected MS-13 gang members in 2019. The raid was predicated on a confidential source who correctly identified several MS-13 members, and indicated Garcia, too, was a member, although he was not the target of the raid. The police handed Garcia over to ICE. At his immigration hearing, he requested to be released on bail. The immigration judge found “the fact that a ‘past, proven, and reliable source of information’ verified (Garcia’s) gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support (Garcia’s) gang membership” and denied his release as a threat to the community.
Contra Vice President Vance’s assertion Garcia was “convicted,” this was an immigration court and hence a civil finding, not a conviction. Contra all those who minimize this finding, such a finding was all that was determined in President Trump’s sexual assault case. You can’t have it both ways. Back to the Maryland Man.
Garcia appealed the judge’s finding and it was affirmed by an appeals court who also noted Garcia was a flight risk due to his failure to show up for several traffic violations. Next Garcia filed a request for asylum, claiming his life was threatened by the Barrio 18 gang in El Salvador due to his family’s pupusa* business. His asylum filing was rejected because it was outside the statute of limitations, but the immigration judge did find Garcia had a legitimate fear if he was returned to El Salvador. Thus the judge granted him a “withholding of removal” to El Salvador. He could not be sent to that country, but he was ineligible for asylum and could be deported anywhere else.
He wasn’t picked up in an immigration raid, even back in 2019; it was a criminal (i.e., police) raid of MS-13 gang members. Although he was never convicted, both an immigration judge and an appeals court found he likely was a gang member. He was allowed to stay freely in the country (even after his asylum request was denied) by a lax Biden administration policy. He did not have a “legally-protected status” as some media sources claimed. His only legal protection was against being deported to El Salvador. This was the “administrative error” the Trump administration admitted to in court: not in deporting him, which was their right, but in deporting him to the one country to which he wasn’t allowed to be deported.
Was he assessed to be an MS-13 gang member because of his tattoos or clothing (he was wearing a Chicago Bulls hat when apprehended). According to the judge who made the finding, no. That judge put no stock in the clothing or tattoos, but instead weighed the confidential source’s credibility and the fact Garcia was arrested in the company of three convicted MS-13 gang leaders. Does that mean he was a gang member? Not necessarily. Maybe he was and quit when he got to the States. Maybe he never was, and it was all one hell of a coincidence. Maybe he was a gang-banger, and just very good at not getting caught. Even the judge noted only having three minor traffic convictions in almost ten years would be unusual for a gang member.
What can we say definitively? He was not in the Unites States legally in any way shape or form. Garcia received all the due process which was his right: an immigration hearing, an appeal, and an asylum hearing. He never received any right or privilege to stay in the country, only one which prohibited his deportation to El Salvador. He never should have been on that plane to San Salvador, but he could have been dropped off in Mexico on any day of the week. Nothing in his record was unknown to his family; there were no surprises here, except for the fact that the Biden administration failed to detain him after two judges found he was a potential threat to the community. But that’s how they treated the law at the time. No one but Garcia, MS-13, or the Lord knows whether he was a gang member. One interesting point is that if he was an MS-13 member, it would explain his well-founded fear of the Barrio 18 gang, as they were mortal enemies.
This was not a sweeping miscarriage of justice, nor Gestapo tactics. It was blatantly incompetent. It is also sad that his wife and child are missing him, but that is the inevitable consequence of a series of horrible policy decisions by two (not one) administrations. I don’t know if Mr. Garcia is or was a gang member . . . and neither do you. What I do know is the narratives both sides are telling you are pupusas stuffed with something nasty.
*Salvadoran stuffed tortillas, according to the court record.
Post Script: Since I completed this, an appeals court judge said the deportation was “wholly lawless” and questioned the immigration court judge’s ruling that the ICE confidential source was credible. This is highly unusual, as appellate judges normally only review procedures and do not dispute the facts as established by the trial court (civil or criminal). The appellate judge did not explain why she disagreed with the immigration judge’s assessment of the source, calling the government’s claim “just chatter,” and she ordered the federal government to immediately comply by returning Garcia to the United States.
The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which held (5-4) that the district court where the initial ruling was made was not the correct venue and therefore the various orders and injunctions were null and void. The court did not rule on whether the Trump administration’s claims under the Alien Act of 1789 were valid. Stay tuned!
I’m sorry to be heartless — and perhaps ” lawless” — but Garcia entered the country illegally and the Bidrn Admin should have deported him. If a judge said not to El Salvador, fine (tho I would question if the judge were a flaming liberal like Boasberg, at the same or lower court level than him, and appropriately positioned to make a ring), then fine…Biden should have deported him elsewhere.
Bondi and Trump are trying to reverse the ills dumped on us. If that means a few mistakes are made, so be it. And frankly, I take Bondi’s point that if all these illegals entered with no or minimal vetting (without due process. If you will) AND, thus against the law, then this Admin should be authorized to expel them without the less-thzn-full due process some are asserting they warrant. I applaud this Admin’s efforts to remove illegals–esecially the criminal ones — despite sanctuary city, democrat judges, and left wing activity efforts to.protect them.
Pat, I concur with your assessment wholeheartedly. You nailed it!
The Trump administration is furiously trying to reassert the power of the Executive, and the MSM (legacy media) sadly lacks the ability to interpret the nuances of the judicial processes.
What has been driving me nuts lately are the claims within even social media on both sides that one side has dealt the other a definitive blow at each incremental decision. The judicial system does not work in a way that lends itself to “sound byte” reporting.
When Alito and Thomas join a unanimous SCOTUS decision (which is apocalyptic in and of itself) to bring him back, it does weaken your argument just a bit.
Sean, thanks for commenting! My “argument” was about the vacuity of the two narratives being presented; I don’t see anything that undermines it in the SCOTUS order. Since it was an unsigned order (so-called shadow docket, I assume), we don’t know what the vote was, only that at least five Justices must have agreed. The order itself (linked here) is brief, and specifies only that the lower court must reconsider its ruling with respect to whether it has the authority to order the federal government to return Mr. Garcia. Of course, returning him would (partially) redress the administrative error to which the government admits. Even SCOTUS identifies the problem: can a judge make an order directing US foreign relations? If they thought so, they would simply have concurred with the lower court; instead they told that judge to reconsider the ruling in that light, and the federal government to identify what it is prepared to do. The only apocalyptic language in the ruling comes from an addendum by the three “liberal” members of the court, who clearly do not have majority support.
Having reviewed the case, so far the Supreme Court has found for Garcia, especially after the government admitted that Garcia was removed due to an “administrative error.” Although he entered the US illegally, he was here legally eventually under a “withholding of removal” status that would block his deportation to El Salvador due to the threat that gangs would pose to him, finding that “he was more likely than not to be harmed if he was returned to El Salvador.” So, ultimately he was granted legal status under existing law. I repeat, he eventually was found to be here legally. He thus was no longer illegal. I have no idea whether the judge who made that decision was conservative or liberal, but Garcia’s case was thus adjudicated under law. The writers here may not like this, but we live under a system of laws.
Despite Pat’s strong insinuation that Garcia was really (nudge, nudge), an MS-13 member, when he was picked up at a Home Depot in 2019 looking for work, the police did not believe the person who said he was MS-13. [See https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/03/an-administrative-error-sends-a-man-to-a-salvadoran-prison/682254/%5D There has never been evidence that he was a member. He was never tried for a crime as an MS-13 member. Or any crime.
The Supreme Court stated that : “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 concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”
I would also disagree with Pat’s description of Sotomayor comments. I read the Supreme Court order and she cites many many previous cases, laws, USG directives, and US adherence to conventions that support bringing Garcia back. Very level-headed and hardly apocalyptic.
It seems clear that the USG is to facilitate Garcia’s release. The Court was somewhat hesitant to not put its nose too much in foreign affairs but facilitating Garcia’s release is a pretty clear result of the ruling. And Trump has decided in his meeting today with Bukele, the President of El Salvador today to tell the Court to pound sand. The only question is why? What does it serve the US to not fix a clear error?
Au contraire, mi amigo (mixed language apology)!
In order:
A withholding of removal is, as the name implies, an order which prohibits someone from being sent somewhere. It does not “magically” grant one legal status. In Garcia’s case, it should have protected him from being deported to El Salvador. Garcia was/is/will be illegal if he ever returns to the US. The only reason he wasn’t deported anywhere else was the first Trump administration (and later the Biden administration) failed to hold a final deportation hearing and give him the deportation order. That is the due process he has yet to receive.
I stated repeatedly that I do not know whether Gacia is MS13 or not, and neither does anyone else (except MS13, Garcia, and the Lord). I only suggested an MS13 membership would explain his fear of rival Barrio 18 gang. Which makes more sense than the pupusa story he told, which would hardly continue to be relevant after his family (1) quit the business, and (2) he left the country. I know pupusas are popular, but that’s quite a vendetta. As to evidence, there is a confidential informant statement that one judge has seen, as it was relevant to that case: the immigration judge. He said, “the fact that a “past, proven, and reliable source of information” verified the Respondent’s gang membership, rank, and gang name is sufficient to support that the Respondent is a gang member, and the Respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion.”
It is a red herring (and a stale one at this point) to cite that Garcia has never been tried or found criminally guilty of being an MS13 member. It is true and irrelevant, If Trump wanted to try Joel as an MS13 member, he would have to do so in criminal court. Garcia’s membership was “found” in an immigration court, with different rules, different rights, different rulings. That too is the rule of law. And don’t dismiss “findings” lightly; that’s all that Trump was “found” to be in the sexual assault case!
As Joel states, we are both waiting for the judge to clarify her understanding of “effectuate.” She has so far refused to do so, claiming it is obvious. I hope no one accuses her of ignoring SCOTUS.
As to Justice Sotomayor, I find the following language, unrelated to the matter at hand, apocalyptic: “The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.” To each his own.
Where we agree is that the US government should not have deported Garcia to El Salvador. That is an error. We disagree on whether a federal judge (even SCOTUS) can order the President to return him. That order would necessarily infringe on the President’s foreign policy authority, which is why SCOTUS skated away from it. To borrow Justice Sotomayor’s approach of taking things to extremes, could a federal judge have ordered President Bush to withdraw from Iraq because the cause he cited was in error (WMD)? Could a federal judge have ordered President Obama to disable his drone attack on Anwar al-Awlaki (a US citizen) because due process wasn’t attempted? Not to mention the ironic fact that some are arguing we can order a foreign leader to release one of his own citizens back to the United States!
Is the Trump administration simply being a bully and refusing to correct an error, or is it defending a constitutional prerogative? Again, such a question goes to intent and we don’t know; maybe both. But the latter view is a clear justification.
The reason this case has raised so any issues is that the Trump administration has ignored legal procedure and due process for an individual here legally (at least so far) as the result of a final legal order by a judge. The government has admitted before a federal judge that Garcia’s deportation was a mistake. This is a dangerous first step and Sotomayor, in my view and that of a lot of commentators, was correct in looking at the further implications of the removal of Garcia (and the government’s refusal to rectify its mistake) as the first step in the breakdown of due process by the Trump Administration.
Trump has talked often about deporting US-born citizens to El Salvador: “President Donald Trump has repeatedly raised the idea of sending U.S. citizens who have been convicted of some crimes to prisons in other countries. On Sunday, the president told reporters on Air Force One that ‘we have some horrible criminals, American grown, born,’ and that he’s all for” sending them to prisons in El Salvador — where some Venezuelan migrants are already being detained. ‘I don’t know what the law says on that,” he said.’ His press secretary has supported ‘the president’s idea for American citizens to potentially be deported, these would be heinous, violent criminals who have broken our nation’s laws repeatedly.’ ” SECSTATE Rubio made a similar argument in February. [All of this can be found, among many other news articles, in https://www.washingtonpost.com/immigration/2025/04/10/trump-deportation-us-citizens-legal/%5D
This is all illegal regarding American citizens, but what if the Trump adminsitration tries it out with a test case? What will the president do if an American citizen is “mistakenly” sent to an El Salvador prison? Get that person out or leave him there? And then tell federal courts to go f— themselves because of a constitutional prerogative? Trump talks about sending to foreign prisons Americans who commit disgusting crimes, but Elon Musk wants those who set fire to Tesla dealerships to be sent to El Salvador prisons and Attorney General Bondi wants attacks on Tesla dealerships to be made a federal crime. Arson and other attacks are bad, but do we send arsonists to a foreign Gulag?
Final point: on Anwar al-Awlaki, the USG knew this was a serious issue (killing an American described as intimately and continually supporting foreign terrorists (al Qaeda) and being part of their network abroad). At least the USG internally debated this issue and DOJ Office of Legal Counsel wrote several legal memos trying to justify an attack on him; there was blowback on the Obama administration because al-Awlaki was an American-born US citizen [see https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/10/us/16firstolcawlakimemo-reupload.html and the utterly fascinating article https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/magazine/the-lessons-of-anwar-al-awlaki.html%5D.
Again, the controversy stems from the administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act. There was a debate whether the government even needed to provide any hearing under that law. SCOTUS just said yes, but only a “habeas” hearing in the place where the person is detained. This is the bare minimum of due process, and the government is likely to prevail under such conditions. Note that SCOTUS did not throw out the administration’s invocation of the Alien act, which it could have done.
Trump talks about a lot of things, and while some may find it useful to speculate about his comments, I don’t agree a SCOTUS Justice should do so. Opinion writers, ok, it gets eyeballs. In those same Trump “ramblings” he has repeatedly said ‘if it’s legal’ but I guess we just select the Trump comments which best avail our fears.
I chose the al Awlaki case precisely because it was debated within the government. But the comparison is about what a judge could do during/after the process, not whether it was justified at the time by government lawyers. After all, DOJ is swearing by Trump’s actions, unsurprisingly.
Re: the alien enemies act, still TBD.
The key point is due process. Whatever the truth about Garcia (and Trump’s press secretary is in overdrive in her wild comments about his alleged heinousness), if Garcia gets screwed, ultimately anyone/anyone can get screwed. That is the principle.
One final correction. From everything I have read by legal observers (and it is clear from more detailed reading of the Court ruling itself), the Supreme Court ruling on Garcia was 9-0, not 5-4 as you noted. As the ruling stated, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson “join, respecting the Court’s disposition of the application,” but made additional comments citing legal cases and were a more forceful in its conclusion.
No error this time. You’re confusing the many Court rulings. My postscript mentioning a 5-4 SCOTUS decision was about Trump vs JGG et Al, where the court ruled 5-4 the administration could resume using the Alien act to deport. You’re thinking of the later unsigned order by Chief Justice Roberts in Noem vs Abrego Garcia. This was a ruling on an administrative stay, which shows no voting record. The three Justices you mention added a statement “respecting the Court’s disposition of the application”. As such, we don’t know how the vote went, although many media refer to it as 9-0.