section_path: Contesting deportation/Emergency appeal to the United States Supreme Court
section_name: Emergency appeal to the United States Supreme Court
paragraph_text: Emergency appeal to the United States Supreme Court
  
  On April 7, the Trump administration appealed the Fourth Circuit's ruling via the Supreme Court 's emergency docket. The same day, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a short order temporarily staying Xinis's order, allowing the Trump administration to continue keeping Abrego Garcia in the foreign prison pending immediate further review from the entire Supreme Court. In his Supreme Court filing after the stay was issued, Abrego Garcia's lawyer argued for his release: " has never been charged with a crime, in any country. He is not wanted by the government of El Salvador. He sits in a foreign prison solely at the behest of the United States, as the product of a Kafka-esque mistake."
  
  On April 10, the Supreme Court released a unanimous unsigned order. In reciting the facts of the case the court stated: "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal." After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the District Court "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."
  
  Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring statement joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, stating in part:
  
  The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong.... 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. That view refutes itself.
  
  The Supreme Court did not rule that the federal government must bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States immediately. Judge Xinis had ordered the government to "facilitate and effectuate" his return, but the Supreme Court only granted the "facilitate" part, calling "effectuate" unclear and possibly beyond her authority. The court remanded the case to the district court, telling it to clarify the issue "with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs," while the government "should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."
  
  Both sides claimed victory, with one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers stating "The rule of law won today. Time to bring him home," while a Justice Department spokesman spoke of the decision recognizing the "exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs" and that it "illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the president's authority to conduct foreign policy."
  
  On April 7, the Trump administration appealed the Fourth Circuit's ruling via the Supreme Court 's emergency docket. The same day, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a short order temporarily staying Xinis's order, allowing the Trump administration to continue keeping Abrego Garcia in the foreign prison pending immediate further review from the entire Supreme Court. In his Supreme Court filing after the stay was issued, Abrego Garcia's lawyer argued for his release: " has never been charged with a crime, in any country. He is not wanted by the government of El Salvador. He sits in a foreign prison solely at the behest of the United States, as the product of a Kafka-esque mistake."
  
  On April 10, the Supreme Court released a unanimous unsigned order. In reciting the facts of the case the court stated: "The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal." After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the District Court "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."
  
  Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurring statement joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, stating in part:
  
  The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong.... 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. That view refutes itself.
  
  The Supreme Court did not rule that the federal government must bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States immediately. Judge Xinis had ordered the government to "facilitate and effectuate" his return, but the Supreme Court only granted the "facilitate" part, calling "effectuate" unclear and possibly beyond her authority. The court remanded the case to the district court, telling it to clarify the issue "with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs," while the government "should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps."
  
  Both sides claimed victory, with one of Abrego Garcia's lawyers stating "The rule of law won today. Time to bring him home," while a Justice Department spokesman spoke of the decision recognizing the "exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs" and that it "illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the president's authority to conduct foreign policy."