section_path: Legal implications regarding US citizens
section_name: Legal implications regarding US citizens
paragraph_text: Legal implications regarding US citizens
  
  In response to the government's argument that facilitating Abrego Garcia's return is beyond its scope of responsibility, as he is now in Salvadoran custody, US judges have noted that the legal issue is not limited to Abrego Garcia's deportation. In her April 5 opinion, US District Court Judge Xinis stated:
  
  cling to the stunning proposition that they can forcibly remove any person – migrant and U.S. citizen alike – to prisons outside the United States, and then baldly assert they have no way to effectuate return because they are no longer the "custodian", and the Court thus lacks jurisdiction. As a practical matter, the facts say otherwise.
  
  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held a similar opinion, noting that the administration's arguments, if taken to their ends, could lead to the deportation of citizens without any option for remedy. In its April 17 ruling that referenced Trump's comments suggesting doing so, the court wrote:
  
  If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies?
  
  Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor made a similar observation in her April 10 concurrence:
  
  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.
  
  In response to the government's argument that facilitating Abrego Garcia's return is beyond its scope of responsibility, as he is now in Salvadoran custody, US judges have noted that the legal issue is not limited to Abrego Garcia's deportation. In her April 5 opinion, US District Court Judge Xinis stated:
  
  cling to the stunning proposition that they can forcibly remove any person – migrant and U.S. citizen alike – to prisons outside the United States, and then baldly assert they have no way to effectuate return because they are no longer the "custodian", and the Court thus lacks jurisdiction. As a practical matter, the facts say otherwise.
  
  The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held a similar opinion, noting that the administration's arguments, if taken to their ends, could lead to the deportation of citizens without any option for remedy. In its April 17 ruling that referenced Trump's comments suggesting doing so, the court wrote:
  
  If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies?
  
  Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor made a similar observation in her April 10 concurrence:
  
  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.