Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick | Episode: "He Was Deported by Administrative Error. We Talked to His Lawyer"
Release Date: April 5, 2025
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Simon Sandoval Moshenberg, Partner and Head of Litigation at Murray Osorio PLCC
Introduction
In this compelling episode of Amicus, Dahlia Lithwick delves into a harrowing case of wrongful deportation orchestrated by administrative error. The episode centers on Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland husband and father, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador despite holding a protective order preventing his removal. Lithwick interviews Simon Sandoval Moshenberg, Garcia's lawyer, to unravel the legal intricacies and the broader implications of this case.
Background of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was living in the United States legally, married to a U.S. citizen with a five-year-old autistic child. In 2019, while working as a day laborer, Garcia was arrested by ICE and applied for asylum. Although his asylum request was denied for not filing within the mandated one-year period, he was granted withholding of removal, a status that:
- Prohibits Deportation: Ensures he cannot be deported to El Salvador.
- Allows Legal Residency: Permits him to reside and work legally in the U.S. (From [06:18])
Notable Quote:
"Withholding of removal means two things. It means that he can't be deported to the country of El Salvador... he's allowed to remain in the United States and in fact, get a work permit."
— Simon Sandoval Moshenberg [06:18]
The Deportation Error
In March 2025, Garcia was unexpectedly deported to El Salvador aboard a U.S.-operated flight amidst a controversial deportation crackdown. This action contradicted the judge’s protective order from 2019 and raised significant legal and ethical concerns.
Key Events:
- Apprehension on March 15th: Garcia was pulled over by ICE while picking up his child from daycare. He was threatened with child protective services if his wife did not arrive to escort his child.
- Initial Detention: Garcia was bounced between detention centers, maintaining communication with his family until suddenly disappearing.
- Media Revelation: Friends recognized him from media reports about Venezuelans deported to El Salvador, identifying him by his scars and tattoo.
Notable Quote:
"He just kept being bumped up the list, that he was not initially necessarily gonna be subject to all this, but as they plucked other folks, he just kept moving up in rank."
— Dahlia Lithwick [20:32]
Legal Arguments and Actions
Simon's legal approach emphasizes the administrative and judicial failures that led to Garcia's wrongful deportation. Key arguments include:
- Violation of Protective Order: The deportation violated the 2019 judge’s order prohibiting removal to El Salvador.
- Lack of Due Process: Garcia was not afforded the opportunity to contest his deportation in El Salvador, infringing on constitutional protections.
- Administrative Error Without Remedy: The government acknowledges the mistake but claims there is no available remedy to rectify it.
Notable Quote:
"The administration currently opposes his attorney's request to have him returned to the United States... they have zero obligation to do anything about that."
— Dahlia Lithwick [02:25]
Government's Position vs. Lawyer's Analysis
The U.S. government's stance is that Garcia's deportation was an "administrative error" stemming from a clerical mistake. However, Simon argues that:
- Precedent of Remediation: Historically, similar errors were promptly corrected by the Department of Justice and Homeland Security.
- Systemic Coordination with El Salvador: The deportation was part of a coordinated effort, not a random error, undermining the claim of mere clerical mishap.
- Legal Recourse Exists: Courts can compel the government to rectify wrongful deportations, challenging the notion that there is no remedy.
Notable Quote:
"Even if you take it for granted that this was an administrative error carried out in good faith, that does not absolve them of their obligation to at least try, by all means reasonably possible, to fix it."
— Dahlia Lithwick [23:14]
Court's Decision
Following legal motions, U.S. District Judge Paula Zinnis of Maryland ruled that the Trump administration had acted illegally in deporting Garcia. She ordered his return to the United States by midnight on April 7th, signaling the onset of a potential constitutional crisis as the government contemplates compliance.
Notable Quote:
"The Trump administration had acted illegally when it deported Mr. Abrego Garcia and ordered his return to the United States no later than midnight on April 7th this coming Monday."
— Dahlia Lithwick [02:28]
Implications and Conclusion
The case highlights significant flaws within the U.S. immigration system, particularly regarding the enforcement of judicial orders and the protection of individuals against wrongful deportation. Simon expresses optimism that coordinated legal and diplomatic efforts can secure Garcia’s return, though skepticism remains about the administration's willingness to comply.
Key Takeaways:
- Judicial Authority vs. Executive Action: The episode underscores the tension between court orders and executive actions in immigration enforcement.
- Protective Legal Measures: Emphasizes the importance of legal statuses like withholding of removal in safeguarding individuals from dangerous deportations.
- Systemic Reform Needed: Suggests a dire need for reforms to prevent administrative errors from overriding judicial protections.
Closing Remarks:
Dahlia Lithwick and Leon Nayfak conclude the episode by stressing the urgency of the situation and the necessity for vigilant legal advocacy to uphold constitutional protections against arbitrary government actions.
Notable Quote:
"It's an awful spot for the Supreme Court... We're going to have to pay the price for the choice that the American people made in November."
— Simon Sandoval Moshenberg [49:04]
Additional Content
While the primary focus of the episode is on Garcia's wrongful deportation, brief segments discuss upcoming topics, such as the legality of Trump's tariffs and related legal battles. However, these sections primarily serve as teasers for future episodes and are not elaborated upon in this summary.
This summary encapsulates the critical discussions and insights from the episode, providing a comprehensive overview for those who haven't listened to it.