BATTLE LINES: INSIDE THE ADMINISTRATION’S LEGAL STANDOFF OVER THE ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION

By Lucas Novak, National Security Correspondent
May 5, 2025

Homan Defends Administration’s Stance in Fiery Exchange

Border czar Tom Homan engaged in a heated exchange with CNN host Kaitlin Collins this week over the case of Kilmer Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was deported to El Salvador last month despite having legal protection against being sent back to his home country. The confrontation highlighted the growing tension between the administration’s hard-line immigration enforcement policies and court rulings demanding Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States.

During the tense segment, Collins pressed Homan on the administration’s response to a recent Supreme Court ruling that directed officials to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. Collins also referenced a 2019 court decision that had granted Abrego Garcia protection from deportation to El Salvador, suggesting the administration had erred in removing him.

Homan, however, forcefully rejected these arguments, laying out the administration’s position that circumstances have fundamentally changed since the 2019 ruling.

“Well, he’s in the custody of El Salvador; he’s an El Salvadoran national,” Homan told Collins. “El Salvador has him in custody…The El Salvadoran president has made it clear he’s not going to release him. The DOJ is going to fight this out…The courts will decide what the next steps will be.”

When Collins attempted to reference the 2019 immigration judge’s ruling that prohibited Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador specifically, Homan cut her off.

“We keep going back and back…That was years ago, the country was different,” Homan fired back, before launching into a list of reasons the administration believes justifies its position.

The MS-13 Designation: A Central Point of Contention

At the heart of the administration’s argument is its insistence that Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13, the notorious transnational gang that President Trump designated as a foreign terrorist organization in February. This designation forms a critical part of the administration’s legal justification for refusing to comply with court orders to return him.

“He has been designated a terrorist since that time,” Homan emphasized during the CNN interview. “Two different federal judges said he’s an MS-13 member. A police department said he’s an MS-13 member. ICE data shows he’s an MS-13 member. El Salvador said he’s an MS-13 member.”

The administration has released documents attempting to substantiate these claims, including a 2019 “gang field interview sheet” from Maryland police that alleged Abrego Garcia was an MS-13 member based on information from a confidential informant, his clothing at the time of arrest, and his association with other suspected gang members.

However, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have consistently denied these allegations, pointing out that he has never been charged with or convicted of any crime in the United States. They argue the gang affiliation claim is based solely on uncorroborated hearsay from a confidential source and superficial assessments of his clothing.

What’s more, an immigration judge in 2019 reviewed the evidence and ultimately granted Abrego Garcia protection from deportation to El Salvador under a legal provision called “withholding of removal,” finding that he had a “well-founded fear of future persecution” from local gangs if returned to El Salvador.

From Traffic Stop to International Incident

What began as a routine traffic stop has escalated into a complex legal and diplomatic standoff that tests the limits of executive power, judicial authority, and international relations.

On March 12, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents pulled over Abrego Garcia outside an Ikea in Baltimore while his five-year-old son was in the backseat. Three days later, on March 15, he was among hundreds of migrants deported to El Salvador under the administration’s aggressive removal program targeting alleged gang members.

Upon arrival, Abrego Garcia was placed in CECOT, a notorious Salvadoran mega-prison where the Trump administration has sent hundreds of deportees under an agreement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele’s government. The U.S. is reportedly paying El Salvador $6 million to detain these individuals.

The deportation quickly drew legal challenges from Abrego Garcia’s wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, a U.S. citizen, and his attorneys. They argued that his removal violated the 2019 court order specifically barring his deportation to El Salvador.

Within weeks, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody and ensure his return to the United States. When the administration appealed, the case rapidly made its way to the Supreme Court, which on April 10 unanimously affirmed Judge Xinis’s order.

The Legal Battle Intensifies

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, the administration has shown little sign of complying with the order to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. In a highly unusual move, the Department of Justice initially described the deportation as an “administrative error” in court filings, with a DOJ lawyer explicitly acknowledging the mistake. However, the administration later placed that lawyer on leave and has since doubled down on its refusal to bring Abrego Garcia back.

The administration’s defiance culminated in a high-profile meeting at the White House on April 14 between President Trump and Salvadoran President Bukele, where both leaders publicly declared that Abrego Garcia would not be returning to the United States.

This position suffered a setback on Thursday when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the administration’s emergency request to block Judge Xinis’s order. The three-judge panel, comprised of appointees from both Republican and Democratic administrations, delivered a strongly worded rebuke to the government’s position.

Judge Harvie Wilkinson, a Reagan appointee, wrote in the court’s opinion: “The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

The court’s reference to Abrego Garcia as a “resident” drew particular criticism from administration officials and supporters, who emphasize that he entered the country illegally and is not a lawful permanent resident, despite having legal permission to remain in the U.S. under the withholding of removal order.

A Case of Competing Narratives

As the legal battle continues, two starkly different portraits of Abrego Garcia have emerged.

His wife and attorneys describe him as a hardworking family man who fled gang violence in El Salvador, worked in construction in Maryland for over a decade, and was raising three children with special needs. They emphasize that he has no criminal record in the United States and had been complying with immigration requirements, including regular check-ins with ICE, since his release from detention in 2019.

The administration, meanwhile, portrays him as a dangerous gang member who poses a security threat to the United States. Attorney General Pam Bondi has stated unequivocally that “he should not be in our country” and “he is not coming back to our country,” regardless of court rulings. The Justice Department has also released documents showing that Abrego Garcia’s wife had obtained a temporary protective order against him in 2021, though the case was closed a month later when she failed to appear for a court hearing.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem echoed this sentiment in a recent statement: “We hear far too much in the mainstream media about sob stories of gang members and criminal illegals and not enough about their victims.”

Beyond Abrego Garcia: The Broader Immigration Strategy

The Abrego Garcia case has emerged as a flashpoint in the administration’s broader immigration enforcement strategy, which includes the controversial invocation of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations of alleged gang members with minimal judicial review.

The administration’s designation of gangs like MS-13 and Tren de Aragua as “foreign terrorist organizations” has enabled a more aggressive approach to removals, with officials arguing that ordinary due process protections may be circumvented when dealing with national security threats.

Critics, including civil liberties organizations and immigration advocates, contend that this approach undermines fundamental constitutional principles and sets a dangerous precedent for executive power. They argue that even non-citizens are entitled to basic due process protections before being expelled from the country, particularly when they have been granted legal relief from deportation.

The administration’s supporters, however, see the case as an example of activist judges interfering with legitimate efforts to protect public safety and enforce immigration laws. They argue that the executive branch should have broad discretion in matters of national security and foreign affairs, including decisions about which non-citizens may remain in the country.

Judicial Frustration Mounting

Judge Xinis’s patience with the administration appears to be wearing thin. In a recent hearing, she admonished Justice Department attorneys for failing to comply with her orders and declared she had “no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding” in the case.

“Every day Mr. Abrego Garcia is detained in CECOT is another date of irreparable harm,” Xinis stated, ordering expedited discovery in the case, including sworn depositions from administration officials with firsthand knowledge of efforts to secure his return.

The judge has given both sides two weeks to complete this fact-finding process, setting up another potential confrontation if the administration fails to demonstrate meaningful compliance with her orders.

Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia’s wife told reporters outside the courthouse: “I am asking the Trump administration to stop playing games with the life of Kilmar.”

The Constitutional Stakes

Legal experts note that the case raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the limits of executive authority in immigration matters.

While courts have traditionally granted the executive branch significant deference in foreign affairs and national security, they have also insisted that these powers must be exercised within constitutional boundaries, including respecting judicial authority and due process requirements.

The administration’s apparent refusal to comply with court orders to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return tests these boundaries and potentially sets up a constitutional crisis if the standoff continues.

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth Harding observes: “What makes this case particularly significant is that it directly pits judicial authority against executive claims of national security prerogatives. The courts are essentially saying, ‘You can’t deport someone in violation of their legal protections and then refuse to bring them back by claiming it’s now a foreign affairs issue beyond judicial reach.'”

Homan’s Defiant Stance

For his part, Tom Homan has shown no sign of backing down from the administration’s position on Abrego Garcia or its broader immigration enforcement agenda.

His contentious exchange with CNN’s Collins reflects the administration’s strategy of forcefully challenging media narratives around immigration cases while emphasizing what it sees as the overriding imperative of public safety and national security.

When Collins suggested that the administration might have a responsibility to Abrego Garcia even after his mistaken deportation, Homan rejected the premise entirely, pivoting to the MS-13 connection and the changed circumstances since the 2019 court ruling.

“That gang no longer exists in El Salvador,” Homan said, referring to Barrio 18, the rival gang that had allegedly threatened Abrego Garcia and was cited in the 2019 judicial decision granting him protection from deportation.

The border czar’s forceful defense of the administration’s actions in the case signals that, despite setbacks in court, officials remain committed to their stance that Abrego Garcia should not return to the United States.

The Road Ahead

As the legal battle continues, the ultimate resolution of the case remains uncertain. The administration faces mounting pressure from the courts to comply with orders to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return, while simultaneously maintaining its position that doing so would undermine national security and immigration enforcement objectives.

Several possible outcomes loom: The administration could eventually relent and work with Salvadoran authorities to secure Abrego Garcia’s release and return; it could continue fighting the case through the courts, potentially leading to contempt proceedings if judges determine officials are willfully defying lawful orders; or the standoff could extend indefinitely, with Abrego Garcia remaining in Salvadoran custody as legal and diplomatic wrangling persists.

Whatever the outcome, the case has already established itself as a landmark test of executive power, judicial authority, and the rights of non-citizens in the immigration context. The principles established in its resolution could shape immigration enforcement and constitutional law for years to come.

For now, as Tom Homan’s fiery exchange with Kaitlin Collins illustrated, the administration appears determined to hold its ground, even as the judiciary increasingly signals its unwillingness to accept executive branch defiance of court orders. The battle lines are drawn, and neither side shows signs of backing down.

Lucas Novak is a national security correspondent specializing in immigration enforcement, counterterrorism, and constitutional issues at the intersection of executive and judicial authority. The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of this publication.

.@RealTomHoman cooks Fake News CNN’s @kaitlancollins (many such cases) on Kilmar Abrego Garcia:

“Two different federal judges said he’s an MS-13 member. A police department said he’s an MS-13 member. ICE data shows he’s an MS-13 member. El Salvador said he’s an MS-13 member.” pic.twitter.com/vUYbx4uor5

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) April 18, 2025