Democrat Rep. Shri Thanedar accused the Trump administration of defying a Supreme Court ruling concerning Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal alien deported to El Salvador. The incident has raised questions about judicial overreach and executive authority.
Breitbart reported that Thanedar’s impeachment demand stems from the Trump administration’s handling of a Supreme Court decision earlier this month. The court ordered the release of Garcia, who was illegally in the U.S. and deported under a Trump policy targeting alleged Venezuelan gang members.
In 2019, an immigration judge had ruled Garcia could not be deported to El Salvador due to persecution risks.
Despite this, Garcia, a 29-year-old with a wife and three children, was sent to a prison in El Salvador. The Supreme Court’s February 2025 ruling aimed to address this mistake, but it has no enforcement.
As Garcia is a citizen of El Salvador, the Trump administration has no authority to force El Salvador to hand him back over. Garcia is now in a prison designed to hold members of violent gangs.
The Supreme Court, however, has no enforcement power to compel the Trump administration to act. The administration could legally ignore the court’s demand to release Garcia. This limitation has fueled the controversy, as critics argue Trump is flouting judicial authority.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg escalated tensions by ruling in February 2025 that probable cause exists to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt.
Boasberg’s decision followed the administration’s apparent refusal to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling. This prompted Thanedar’s outspoken support for impeachment.
“I’ve seen enough,” Thanedar declared on X, urging Congress to act swiftly. He argued that Trump’s refusal to abide by the Supreme Court’s ruling warrants immediate impeachment. His statement reflects growing frustration among some Democrats.
The Trump administration, however, maintains that Garcia is a dangerous criminal. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described Garcia as a leader in the MS-13 gang, designated by Trump as a Foreign Terrorist Organization. She also claimed credible intelligence links him to human trafficking.
“This individual was a member of the brutal MS-13 gang,” Leavitt stated, emphasizing the administration’s stance. She reiterated that Garcia will not return to the U.S., underscoring Trump’s hardline immigration policies. Harford County Sheriff Jeff Gahler echoed this, calling Garcia “1000%” an MS-13 member and a documented domestic abuser.
Garcia’s lawyers, meanwhile, called his deportation a “Kafka-esque mistake.” They argue he faced no charges and had complied with U.S. immigration requirements. The conflicting narratives have deepened the divide over the case.
The Supreme Court clarified that the Trump administration is not obligated to immediately retrieve Garcia from El Salvador. The court noted that a judge-imposed deadline for his return had already expired. This ruling suggests the administration has some leeway in addressing Garcia’s situation.
The Supreme Court also criticized District Judge Paula Xinis for potentially overstepping her authority. Xinis had ordered the government to “effectuate” Garcia’s return, which the court said could infringe on the president’s foreign affairs powers. The district court was directed to revise its order with deference to executive authority.
“It is the exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs,” a Justice Department spokesman stated. He argued that activist judges lack jurisdiction to control the president’s foreign policy decisions. This perspective aligns with conservative defenses of Trump’s actions.
The Supreme Court advised the administration to provide updates on steps taken regarding Garcia’s case. This guidance aims to balance judicial oversight with executive discretion. However, the administration’s response remains unclear, fueling ongoing debates.