Supreme Court Rules on Deportation Case of Maryland Man; White House Adviser Responds

White House adviser Stephen Miller appeared on Fox News’ America’s Newsroom this week to discuss the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who had lived in the United States for 14 years.

Abrego Garcia, a sheet metal worker, was arrested in Baltimore on March 12 while picking up his five-year-old son. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported him shortly afterward due to past ties to the MS-13 gang, which is designated as a terrorist organization. However, ICE later acknowledged in court proceedings that the deportation may have involved an “administrative error.”

A legal challenge followed, with lower courts initially ruling that the government should assist in facilitating his return to the U.S. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in favor of the federal government.

During his appearance on the news program, Miller emphasized that the Supreme Court did not require the executive branch to take direct action to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S.

“We won the Supreme Court case 9-0,” Miller said. “The District Court’s decision had gone too far by essentially requiring the U.S. government to retrieve a foreign national from another country, which we argued would violate the executive’s authority over foreign affairs.”

Miller added that the ruling confirmed that courts cannot force the president or federal agencies to engage in international actions that would interfere with another nation’s sovereignty.

“The most the government can be required to do is not to block a return if the individual comes back voluntarily with the cooperation of the foreign government,” he explained. “That means if El Salvador chooses to return him, we wouldn’t prevent it—we would process him according to immigration law.”

The debate has centered around whether the deportation was lawful. While a Department of Justice filing had previously described Abrego Garcia’s removal as a mistake, Miller stated this information came from an individual who is no longer with the department. He argued that the deportation was lawful and consistent with established procedures.

“He was a citizen of El Salvador with a final order of removal issued in 2019,” Miller said. “He was not deported by accident. He had no legal status in the U.S., and his deportation was carried out in accordance with that order.”

Miller also addressed concerns raised about Abrego Garcia’s alleged ties to MS-13. When asked by host Bill Hemmer whether he still believed Garcia was a member of the gang, Miller responded firmly.

“Yes. I am convinced of that, and so is the government of El Salvador,” he said, without providing specific new evidence. “Regardless of that, he has a final order of removal. His legal options are limited to being deported to El Salvador or another country willing to accept him.”

The Supreme Court’s decision focused narrowly on the limits of judicial authority over executive actions in immigration enforcement, particularly regarding international diplomacy and foreign policy.

Legal experts note that while the case has raised complex questions about due process, agency error, and executive power, the high court’s decision clarified that courts can only require the government to allow a deported person to return—not to take proactive steps to retrieve them from another country.

For now, Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador, where he has been detained by local authorities. It remains unclear whether any further action will be taken to seek his return.

The case has drawn attention from advocates on both sides of the immigration debate. Supporters of stricter enforcement argue that final removal orders should be upheld, while others have expressed concern about the potential consequences of deportations carried out in error.

Regardless of differing views, the Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirmed the principle that decisions involving international actions and foreign policy rest primarily with the executive branch—not the judiciary.