A U.S. appeals court ordered the Trump administration this week to comply with a lower court judge’s order to return a 20-year-old Venezuelan migrant deported from the U.S. to El Salvador in March, marking another setback in legal battles over its use of the Alien Enemies Act.
The 2–1 decision from the 4th Circuit leaves in place U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher’s earlier ruling that Daniel Lozano-Camargo, previously identified in court documents as “Cristian,” must be allowed back into the country.
Gallagher, a Trump appointee, ruled that Lozano-Camargo’s removal violated an agreement that the Department of Homeland Security struck with a group of other migrants who entered the U.S. illegally as children and later sought asylum. DHS agreed not to deport these individuals, who later sought asylum in the U.S. until their cases could be fully adjudicated in court.
The decision paves the way for the Trump administration to appeal the case to the Supreme Court. In the interim, Gallagher has said she will amend her ruling to set a formal timeline for the government to return the 20-year-old migrant to the U.S.
FEDERAL JUDGE ORDERS RETURN OF DEPORTED MIGRANT TO US, REJECTING TRUMP REQUEST
The Justice Department appealed the case to the 4th Circuit earlier this month.
The majority opinion, published Monday night, rejected its request, stressing what judges said was their role in ensuring the courts have the ability to prevent any attempted “degradation of effective judicial review” by the executive branch.
“As is becoming far too common, we are confronted again with the efforts of the Executive Branch to set aside the rule of law in pursuit of its goals,” Judge DeAndrea Gist Benjamin said, writing for the majority. “It is the duty of courts to stand as a bulwark against the political tides that seek to override constitutional protections and fundamental principles of law, even in the name of noble ends like public safety.”
“The Government’s breach denied Cristian the benefit of the bargain and the process he was due,” Gregory added.
Gallagher ruled in April that the government violated a 2024 settlement between DHS and a group of young asylum seekers, including Lozano-Camargo. Under that deal, DHS agreed not to deport the migrants, all of whom entered the U.S. as unaccompanied children, until their cases were fully heard in court.
Last month, Gallagher said Lozano-Camargo’s deportation was a “breach of contract” since his asylum case had not yet been heard and ordered the U.S. government to arrange for his release. Lawyers for the Trump administration argued Lozano-Camargo was eligible for removal under the Alien Enemies Act, citing his arrest and conviction on cocaine possession charges as recently as January. They also claimed, without evidence, he was a member of a “violent terrorist gang.”
IDENTITY OF SECOND DEPORTED MAN WHO JUDGE WANTS RETURNED TO US REVEALED AS TRUMP ADMIN FIGHTS ORDER
Gallagher reiterated her previous decision this month, emphasizing it has nothing to do with the strength of his asylum request in a nod to two apparent low-level drug offenses. Rather, she stressed, it was a matter of due process.
The government is “measuring utility using the wrong yardstick” in this case, she told the administration, adding it is not a case of whether Lozano-Camargo will eventually receive asylum, but the process afforded to him in the interim.
Process, she said, is important for various reasons, noting that even when outcomes in certain criminal cases or trials seem obvious, individuals are still entitled to a trial under U.S. law.
“We don’t skip to the end and say, ‘We all know how this is going to end, so we’ll just skip that part,'” she said.
This was also upheld by the judges of the appellate court.
“The Government’s breach denied Cristian the benefit of the bargain and the process he was due,” Benjamin said, writing for the majority.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
The job of the courts is to “say what the law is,” she said. “The task is delicate but cannot be shirked.”
It is unclear whether the Trump administration will appeal the case to the Supreme Court.
