Trump admin must seek return of wrongly deported man to El Salvador, appeals court rules

Politico

19-05-2025

A federal appeals court has left in place an order requiring the Trump administration to seek the return of a Venezuelan man deported in March from the U.S. to a prison in El Salvador.
A panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals voted 2-1 Monday to deny the administration's request to block the order a federal judge in Maryland issued after concluding that the man, Daniel Lozano-Camargo, was deported in violation of a legal settlement involving asylum seekers who entered the U.S. as minors.
The Trump administration delivered Lozano-Camargo to El Salvador on March 15, when it sent several planes full of deportees to Salvadoran custody. The flights came just hours after President Donald Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, a war power intended to speed the deportation of Venezuelan immigrants deemed by U.S. officials to be part of the gang Tren de Aragua. Lozano-Camargo was among about 130 Venezuelans deported under Trump's proclamation that day.
But last month, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher — a Maryland-based Trump appointee — ordered the administration to facilitate Lozano-Camargo's return, saying the breach of the 2024 settlement required him to be brought back to receive due process.
Justice Department lawyers urged the appeals court to reverse Gallagher's ruling, saying the judge had intruded on executive branch authority by ordering U.S. officials to reach out to their Salvadoran counterparts to seek the release of Lozano-Camargo, referred to in public court filings by the pseudonym 'Cristian.'
'The Government cannot facilitate Cristian's return telepathically — it must express in words to the government of El Salvador that Cristian be released for transport back to the United States,' Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, a Biden appointee, wrote for the appeals court panel's majority.
Judge Julius Richardson, a Trump appointee, dissented.
'Many options may be available to district courts seeking to craft appropriate relief in response to deportations they find unlawful. But directing diplomatic negotiations to the Executive Branch is not among them,' he wrote. 'There is no such thing as a trifling discussion between
heads of state; matters perceived as unimportant in the moment may unexpectedly bloom
into trade pacts and environmental protocols — or deteriorate into war.'
It's the second time the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th Circuit has left in place lower-court orders requiring the Trump administration to facilitate the return of immigrants who were wrongfully sent to El Salvador in the series of rushed flights in March.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's case has gained international attention amid the Trump administration's resistance to facilitating his return despite acknowledging his deportation to El Salvador violated a 2019 immigration judge's order. That order found Abrego Garcia could face persecution by a local gang if returned to his home country.
Lozano-Camargo's case has generated less attention but follows similar contours.
Richardson said the order in Lozano-Camargo's case went further than any in Abrego Garcia's case, but Benjamin and the third judge on the panel, Roger Gregory, disagreed.
Gregory, a Clinton recess appointee who was re-nominated and confirmed under George W. Bush, took direct aim at Trump's claim that an incursion or predatory invasion of the U.S. by Tren de Aragua justified the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to rapidly expel alleged members of the gang.
'As nearly every court to have reached the question has concluded, TdA's actions cannot constitute an invasion or predatory incursion within the ordinary meaning of the AEA's text,' Gregory wrote in a concurring opinion. 'I see no evidence of any kind to suggest any 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion' is afoot. The President cannot, by fiat, declare legal conclusions of whether there is or is not an invasion without providing underlying supportive facts.'
The Trump administration could ask the full bench of the 4th Circuit to take up the issue or appeal to the Supreme Court. Spokespeople for the Homeland Security and Justice Departments did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Lawyers for Lozano-Camargo and other immigrants welcomed the appeals court's ruling.
'We will continue seeking to hold the government accountable to the promises it made in our settlement agreement to the thousands of vulnerable young people whose futures depend on the integrity of the process guaranteed under the settlement. We are hopeful that the appeals court, like the district court, will uphold the rights of Cristian and other class members to pursue their asylum claims safely in the United States,' the attorneys and immigration advocacy groups said in a statement.