The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man wrongfully deported to El Salvador, has ignited a fierce debate about the limits of executive power and the protection of individual rights. Trump administration officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, have repeatedly claimed that judicial orders to repatriate deported Venezuelans constitute interference in foreign policy. Rubio infamously stated that “no court in the United States has a right to conduct the foreign policy of the United States.” This assertion, however, significantly oversimplifies a complex legal and ethical dilemma.
Abrego Garcia’s deportation, carried out without due process in March 2025, highlights the core issue: the conflict between executive actions in foreign affairs and the fundamental right to due process for individuals within the U.S. legal system. The Supreme Court ordered the facilitation of his return, yet the administration refuses, citing its prerogative in foreign policy. This refusal raises serious questions about the administration’s commitment to upholding the rule of law, even when dealing with individuals who are not U.S. citizens.
The argument that judicial intervention in such cases constitutes meddling in foreign policy is fundamentally flawed. While courts cannot dictate foreign policy, they certainly can and should intervene when governmental actions violate fundamental rights. The administration’s actions, including the undisclosed agreements with El Salvador for the detention of deportees and the reported $15 million payment to El Salvador for imprisoning these individuals, are not immune to judicial review. These actions represent governmental deprivations of due process, not simply matters of foreign policy.
Legal experts, such as international law scholar Chimène Keitner, argue that the cases are fundamentally about individual rights, not foreign policy. The administration’s position, if accepted, would grant them the power to disregard due process for any individual, citizen or non-citizen, sent to another country. This position directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Reid v. Covert* (1957), which established that the government cannot deprive citizens of due process through agreements with foreign nations. The implications for non-citizens are equally grave.
Furthermore, the administration’s claim that courts lack jurisdiction over actions in El Salvador ignores the fact that the U.S. government initiated the actions leading to the detention. While a U.S. court cannot directly order the El Salvadoran government, it can and has ordered the U.S. government to request the individual’s return. The Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return should be interpreted as a clear directive to actively pursue his repatriation. The administration’s attempts to narrowly define “facilitate” as simply removing domestic legal obstacles are disingenuous given the circumstances.
The administration’s attempts to portray judicial oversight as “lawlessness” are a dangerous overreach. The proper channel for disagreement with court orders is through the appellate process, not defiance. While the executive branch possesses significant power in foreign affairs, that power is not absolute and must remain subject to judicial review when fundamental rights are at stake. The ongoing debate surrounding Abrego Garcia’s case underscores the crucial need for checks and balances within the U.S. government to protect individual liberties, even in the context of complex international relations. The potential extension of these detention agreements to encompass U.S. citizens only further highlights the urgency of this issue and the need for robust judicial oversight.
