DHS Oppose Additional Relief in Abrego Garcia Case, Citing Constitutional Limits
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Defendants, led by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, responded to Plaintiffs’ motion for additional relief in the case.
In a legal brief filed on April 13, 2025, in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Defendants, led by Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, responded to Plaintiffs’ motion for additional relief in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia et al. The Plaintiffs sought further court intervention following the Defendants’ failure to comply with a prior court order to provide sworn testimony on sensitive diplomatic matters. The Defendants argue that the requested relief oversteps constitutional boundaries and interferes with the Executive Branch’s authority over foreign affairs, particularly in relation to El Salvador. The brief highlights the court’s April 11, 2025, order, which mandated daily status reports on Abrego Garcia’s location, custodial status, and steps taken for his return to the U.S., starting April 12, 2025.
The Plaintiffs requested three forms of relief: (1) court oversight of U.S. foreign relations with El Salvador, (2) expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing, and (3) an order to show cause for contempt. The Defendants argue that these requests violate the Supreme Court’s guidance, which emphasized deference to the Executive Branch in foreign policy matters. The Supreme Court’s April 10, 2025, order clarified that any directive must respect the Executive’s authority, stating, “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." Defendants assert that “facilitate” in the immigration context means removing domestic obstacles to an alien’s return, not directing foreign relations. They argue that Plaintiffs’ demands—such as making demands of El Salvador, dispatching personnel there, or sending aircraft—violate separation of powers.
The brief cites precedent, noting, “The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way” (United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. (1936). Defendants also confirmed Abrego Garcia’s status, stating he is “alive and secure” in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, and noted ongoing diplomatic efforts, including a meeting between Presidents Trump and Bukele on April 14, 2025.
Additionally, the Defendants oppose expedited discovery, arguing it would probe sensitive diplomatic efforts and potentially involve classified documents. They also resist an order to show cause for contempt, asserting compliance with the Supreme Court’s order and respect for El Salvador’s sovereignty. In conclusion, the Defendants urge the court to deny the Plaintiffs’ motion, emphasizing that further intervention risks overstepping judicial authority and disrupting delicate foreign relations.
