Wie berichtet, war am 15. März der el salvadorianische Staatsbürger Kilmar Abrego Garcia aus den USA nach El Salvador abgeschoben worden, obwohl für den Betroffenen gültiger gerichtlicher Abschiebeschutz in Bezug auf El Salvador vorlag.

Am 12.04. hatten Abgreo Garcia und Verwandte beim – erstinstanzlich für den Fall zuständigen District Court Maryland (dort ist das Verfahren jetzt wieder, nachdem der US-Supreme Court dessen erste Entscheidung – entgegen dem Wunsch der Trump-Regierung weitgehend bestehen ließ – beantragt, dieser möge „order expedited discovery of the Government’s actions (or failure to act) to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United State“.

Die Trump-Regierung hatte dagegen am 13.04. eingewandt:

„Plaintiffs’ requested, additional relief is not consistent with either the Supreme Court’s order or the well-established meaning of ‚facilitating‘ returns in immigration law, and harbors fundamental constitutional infirmities On April 10, 2025, the Supreme Court granted in part the Government’s motion to stay this Court’s original preliminary injunction order. The Supreme Court explained that on remand, any new order must ‚clarify‘ the ’scope of the term ›effectuate,‹‘ in a manner that did not ‚exceed the District Court’s authority.‘ Order, at 2. […]. Defendants understand ‚facilitate‘ to mean what that term has long meant in the immigration context, namely actions allowing an alien to enter the United States. Taking ‚all available steps to facilitate‘ the return of Abrego Garcia is thus best read as taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here. Indeed, no other reading of ‚facilitate‘ is tenable—or constitutional—here.
This reading follows directly from the Supreme Court’s order. Order, at 2 (holding any ‚directive‘ must give ‚due regard‘ to the Executive Branch’s exclusive authorities over ‚foreign affairs‘). It tracks longstanding executive practice. Id. at 4 (Statement of Sotomayor, J.) (describing ICE Policy Directive as the ‚well-established policy‘ of the United States). And it comports with how the federal courts have understood the outer bounds of their own power. See Reply in Support of Application to Vacate the Injunction, at 5-7 (Sup. Ct.) (No. 24A949) (collecting authorities). On the flipside, reading ‚facilitate‘ as requiring something more than domestic measures would not only flout the Supreme Court’s order, but also violate the separation of powers. The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner. That is the “exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.‘ United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304, 320 (1936). Such power is ‚conclusive and preclusive,‘ and beyond the reach of the federal courts’ equitable authority. Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593, 607 (2024).
Plaintiffs’ additional relief runs headlong through this constitutional limit. They ask this Court to order Defendants to (i) make demands of the El Salvadoran government (A1), (ii) dispatch personnel onto the soil of an independent, sovereign nation (A2), and (iii) send an aircraft into the airspace of a sovereign foreign nation to extract a citizen of that nation from its custody (A3). ECF 62 at 4. All of those requested orders involve interactions with a foreign sovereign—and potential violations of that sovereignty. But as explained, a federal court cannot compel the Executive Branch to engage in any mandated act of diplomacy or incursion upon the sovereignty of another nation.
Plaintiffs invite this Court to ‚exceed‘ its own ‚authority‘ in the precise sort of way the Supreme Court cautioned against. Order, at 2. This Court should decline the invitation.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.65.0.pdf, S. 2 – 4; Hyperlinks hinzugefügt)

Demgegenüber entschied der District Court Maryland nach einer mündlichen Verhandlung, die am Dienstag um 22:00 Uhr MESZ (16 Uhr Ortszeit) begonnen, zugunsten einer

„expedited discovery to ascertain what, if anything, the Defendants have done 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.‘ Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.—, slip op. at 2. This includes evidence concerning: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s immediate return to the United States; and (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.79.0.pdf, S. 6 f.; Hyperlink hinzugefügt)

und führte zur Begründung aus:

„It is undisputed that Abrego Garcia is entitled to injunctive relief for the reasons previously discussed and affirmed without exception. See Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949, 604 U.S.—(2025), slip op. at 2. As to the scope of such relief, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously affirmed that ‚the [District Court’s] 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.‘ Id. (emphasis added). To that end, the Supreme Court forewarned the Government that they ’should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.‘ Id.; see also Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 25-1345, 2025 WL 1021113, at *6 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2025) (Wilkinson, J., concurring) (‚In this situation, I think it legitimate for the district court to require that the government ‘facilitate’ the plaintiff’s return to the United States so that he may assert the rights that all apparently agree are due him under law. It is fair to read the district court’s order as one requiring that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release, rather than demand it.‘).
This Court, in turn, ordered no more than what the Supreme Court endorsed: that Defendants ‚take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible,‘ because bound within this remedy is Abrego Garcia’s ‚release from custody‘ and the assurance that Abrego Garcia’s ‚case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.‘ Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.—, slip op. at 2; ECF No. 51. To advance that remedy, the Court required swift disclosure of that which stems most obviously from the Supreme Court’s affirmance: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s immediate return to the United States; and (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return. ECF No. 54. This information is wholly consistent with ascertaining what, if anything the Defendants have done to ‚facilitate‘ Abrego Garcia’s ‚release from custody in El Salvador‘ and accord him the process due ‚had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.‘ Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.—, slip op. at 2.
Notably, to ‚facilitate‘ means ‚to make the occurrence of (something) easier; to render less difficult.‘ Facilitate, Black’s Law Dictionary (12th ed. 2024). Merriam-Webster defines the term as ‚to make easier or less difficult: to free from difficulty or impediment.‘ Facilitate, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/facilitate (last visited Apr. 14, 2025). And the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‚facilitate‘ as ‚[t]o assist (a person); to enable or allow (a person) to do something, achieve a particular result, etc., more easily.‘ Facilitate, Oxford English Dictionary, https://doi.org/10.1093/OED/5808503853 (last visited Apr. 14, 2025). Defendants therefore remain obligated, at a minimum, to take the steps available to them toward aiding, assisting, or making easier Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and resuming his status quo ante. But the record reflects that Defendants have done nothing at all.
Instead, the Defendants obliquely suggest that ‚facilitate‘ is limited to ‚taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here.‘ ECF No. 65 at 3 (emphasis in original). The fallacy in the Defendants’ argument is twofold. First, in the ‚immigration context‘ as it were, id., facilitating return of those wrongly deported can and has included more extensive governmental efforts, endorsed in prior precedent and DHS publications. Thus, the Court cannot credit that “facilitating” the ordered relief is as limited as Defendants suggest.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.79.0.pdf, S. 2 unten – 5 oben; fette Hv. von mir; kursive Hv. durch den District Court Maryland [oben] bzw. die US-Regierung [unten]; Hyperlinks hinzugefügt)

Im einzelnen soll es jetzt folgendermaßen weitergehen (es ist aber nicht ausgeschlossen, vielleicht sogar wahrscheinlich, daß die Trump-Regierung versuchen wird, die gestrige Entscheidung bei den höheren Gerichten anzufechten):

„(1) By no later than Wednesday April 16, 2025, at 5:00 PM, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(d)(1), 33, and 34, Plaintiffs may propound upon Defendants up to fifteen (15) interrogatories and fifteen (15) requests for production of documents focused on the above areas of inquiry. [FN 4: „One interrogatory served on all Defendants equals one interrogatory for purposes of this Order. Likewise, one request for production of documents served on all Defendants equals one request for purposes of this Order.“] Defendants’ shall serve their answers and responses to Plaintiffs by no later than Monday April 21, 2025, at 5:00 PM.
(2) Plaintiffs may also, by no later than Wednesday, April 16, 2025, at 5:00 PM, notice the depositions of the following affiants: Robert L. Cerna (ECF No. 11-3), Evan C. Katz (ECF No. 64), Michael G. Kozak (ECF No. 63), and Joseph N. Mazzara (ECF Nos. 74 & 77). Any such depositions must be completed by Wednesday, April 23, 2025, at 5:00 PM.
(3) By no later than Wednesday, April 23, 2025, Plaintiffs may move for leave of Court to conduct up to two additional depositions of individuals with knowledge and authority to testify regarding the matters identified above. Defendants shall respond by Thursday, April 24, 2025. If the Court grants such leave, it will set a deadline by which the depositions must be completed.
To streamline review of any anticipated objections, the Court will file a separate letter order regarding discovery disputes. The parties are to follow the procedures described in the letter for any disputes that cannot be resolved by good faith meet and confer. At the conclusion of expedited discovery, by no later than Monday, April 28, 2025, Plaintiffs shall supplement their motion for requested relief. Defendants shall respond by no later than Wednesday April 30, 2025. The Court will hold in abeyance Plaintiffs’ remaining requests for relief until the completion of expedited discovery and supplemental briefing. That said, should Defendants fail or refuse to engage in the above-described discovery in good faith, Plaintiffs are free to seek separate sanctions on an expedited basis.“
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.79.0.pdf, S. 7 – 8; Fußnote 4 in eckigen Klammern in den Haupttext eingefügt; die dortigen beiden Hv. sind im Original Unterstreichungen statt kursiv-Setzungen; Hyperlinks hinzugefügt)

Siehe auch:

Lawfare Live: Court Hearing on the Removal of Abrego Garcia

„Lawfare Editor in Chief Benjamin Wittes will sit down with Lawfare Senior Editors Anna Bower and Roger Parloff following the 4pm ET hearing on whether the Trump administration is following the Supreme Court’s rulling that the administration facilitate Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from an El Salvador prison.“

Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief by Joseph Dudek
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.76.0_2.pdf (2 Seiten)

Proposed Amicus Brief
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.76.1.pdf (9 Seiten)

Andrew Goudsward / Luc Cohen, No evidence Trump has tried to return wrongly deported man, judge says
https://www.reuters.com/legal/judge-consider-trumps-compliance-with-order-over-wrongly-deported-man-2025-04-15/

Kyle Cheney / Josh Gerstein, Judge launches inquiry into Trump administration’s refusal to seek return of wrongly deported man. “To date, what the record shows is that nothing has been done. Nothing,” U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/15/judge-launches-inquiry-into-trump-administrations-refusal-to-seek-return-of-wrongly-deported-man-00291942

Gary Grumbach / Dareh Gregorian, Judge in Abrego Garcia case indicates she’s weighing contempt proceedings against Trump administration. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the administration to provide evidence on any steps it’s taken to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/judge-abrego-garcia-case-indicates-weighing-contempt-proceedings-trump-rcna201359

Transkript des Treffens von US-Präsident Trump mit dem el salvadorianischen Präsidenten Bukele am Montag:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.77.1.pdf

Vor der gestrigen Verhandlung bereits:

Roger Parloff, Abrego Garcia and MS-13: What Do We Know?
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13–what-do-we-know