If one were to believe Senator Chris Van Hollen, the tale of Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a constitutional melodrama fit for a Frank Capra screenplay—replete with high-minded allusions to liberty and due process, starring the senator himself as the stoic guardian of American ideals. But as with many modern tragedies staged for political theater, the facts—and the law—complicate the narrative.
Let us begin with the constitutional core: due process. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” That these guarantees extend to non-citizens is not speculative but judicially affirmed—Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Wong Wing v. United States remain stalwart precedents. And yet, due process is not an amorphous invocation. It is a defined standard, and its contours are best measured by the Supreme Court’s test in Mathews v. Eldridge.
Under Mathews, courts must balance three factors: (1) the individual’s interest affected by official action, (2) the risk of erroneous deprivation under current procedures and the probable value of additional safeguards, and (3) the government’s interest in efficiency and fiscal constraint. The application of this test in immigration matters has been clarified in cases like Landon v. Plasencia, which found that even returning legal residents must receive fundamentally fair exclusion procedures.
So how does Mr. Abrego Garcia fare under this framework? Let us examine the facts and the history of this case.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, now 29, fled extortion and death threats from Barrio 18 gang members in El Salvador and entered the U.S. illegally around 2011 at age 16. He lived in Maryland for over a decade. In 2018, he moved in with Jennifer Vasquez Sura and her two children in Beltsville, Maryland, after learning she was pregnant.
In 2019, Immigration Judge David M. Jones granted him “withholding of removal” status, concluding there was a “clear probability of future persecution” should he be returned to El Salvador. The court found his testimony credible and documentation substantial. While this protection did not equate to asylum or citizenship, it did block deportation to El Salvador and permitted removal only to a third country willing to receive him. DHS did not appeal, and he received a work permit—living legally in Maryland.
However, this legal sanctuary was not absolute. In June 2020, Immigration Judge Jones apparently vacated the 2019 ruling based on newly submitted derogatory evidence. The court purportedly reinstated the final order of removal to El Salvador. The specifics of this reversal are not detailed in public sources, but the court reportedly held a hearing, considered the evidence, and issued another decision—hallmarks of procedural due process. [Citation: Matter of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, A 206 908 780 (Immigration Court, Baltimore, MD, June 5, 2020). Unpublished, but part of the administrative record reviewed by subsequent courts.]
In 2022, Abrego Garcia was stopped by authorities in Tennessee with eight passengers, all claiming the same Maryland address. Homeland Security suspected human trafficking. A 2019 Prince George’s County Police Gang Unit report identified him as a member of MS-13, and court records documented a history of violent domestic abuse.
On March 12, 2025, Abrego Garcia was detained by ICE outside an Ikea store in Prince George’s County after picking up his 5-year-old son from school. His wife was told to retrieve their son or Child Protective Services would be contacted. According to her, his last words were: “Si fueres fuerte, yo seré fuerte”— “I’ll be strong if you are.” He was not informed of the reason for his arrest.
Under the Trump administration, removal proceedings were reactivated, and Abrego Garcia was deported to Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT), El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison.
Senator Van Hollen soon boarded a plane to El Salvador, presenting himself as the constitutional conscience of the moment. He claimed Abrego Garcia had been moved to a milder facility in Santa Ana before his arrival and now enjoys a room with a bed and furniture. The senator asserted that the Trump administration had “defied court orders” and “denied one man his Constitutional rights,” casting Abrego Garcia as a civil rights martyr.
The case has since morphed into a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis and later the Supreme Court ordered the federal government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. The Supreme Court has declared that the case must proceed as if Abrego Garcia had never been deported.
But the practical and diplomatic stalemate remains. Attorney General Pam Bondi declared that while the U.S. may lift administrative barriers, the final say belongs to El Salvador. El Salvador, under President Nayib Bukele, refused to return Abrego Garcia.
What a mess!
What is disconcerting is not that Senator Van Hollen intervened, but that his compassion appears so asymmetrical. In 2023, Rachel Morin, a Maryland mother of five, was murdered by an illegal immigrant. Her mother, Patty, still awaits a call from the senator. The White House offered a visual contrast: Van Hollen, seated beside Abrego Garcia in El Salvador; Trump, consoling a grieving Maryland mother. The caption read: “We are not the same.”
The Due Process Clause is not a talisman to be invoked when politically convenient. It is a solemn guarantee, rooted in Anglo-American jurisprudence and clarified by generations of precedent. It applies to all persons—but it does not excuse all behavior.
Mr. Abrego Garcia may be the beneficiary of administrative procedural protections, but he is no martyr. If he is ultimately returned to the United States, let the immigration tribunals adjudicate his claims – once again – in accordance with Mathews and the Supreme Court’s order. But let us not pretend that the judicial process requires judicial sainthood. The Constitution is not a shield for predators, nor a sword for partisans. It is, in the final analysis, a mechanism to ensure that justice—blind, impartial, and dispassionate—prevails.
And if we are to mourn the deprivation of rights, let us begin with American citizens—like the late Rachel Morin, and all the taxpayers who bear the financial and social costs of illegal immigration. They are all too often the forgotten casualties in this politicized pageant.
This is my understanding of the history, facts, and posture of this case as well as the conclusions of law. I welcome all thoughtful commentary and criticisms.
James Wilson says
“Homeland Security suspected human trafficking.” And no charges or follow-up. Being suspected does not mean guilty.
“A 2019 Prince George’s County Police Gang Unit report identified him as a member of MS-13, and court records documented a history of violent domestic abuse.” The officer who filed this report was later fired, for getting sexual favors in exchange for info he gave to a commercial sex worker.
And I quote this statement about domestic abuse: “Vasquez Sura said after surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, she filed for a temporary protective order “out of caution” after a disagreement with Abrego Garcia “in case things escalated.”She later decided not to appear in court and the temporary protective order request was dismissed.”
You are correct. This case is a mess. In my opinion, the only person who told the truth was the administration lawyer who said Garcia was wrongly deported. The lawyer was fired because he told the truth. Again, in my opinion, we seldom get any truth from this administration.
Sharron Cassavant says
Thank you for reviewing cases and facts. I assume your research is fair and unprejudiced by politics. The issue here is not whether a particular person does or does not deserve to remain in the United States. It is absolutely an issue of due process, which surely involves notification, a reasonable period in which a party may appeal an administrative finding, which should certainly be public. Unpublished amounts to “secret” does it not? Members of the current administration have speculated about jailing US citizens at a convenient distance from lawyers and judges in foreign countries. A number of immigrants have apparently been deported without an administrative record of who they are and where they were sent. The Supreme Court agrees to the extent of holding an emergency session and forbidding the government from proceeding until the matter can be considered. Democracy is inefficient as the rule of law is slow and often unsatisfactory, compared to tyranny, but it is the best system human beings have devised. Politician’s photo ops are irrelevant to what matters in this case.
Bob Kopec says
Excellent description of this matter. The major news stations fail in this regard.
S.D. Swan says
I have not heard Senator Van Hollen advocate for the sainthood of Mr. Abrego Garcia, but only for the guarantee of due process to which he, as well as you and I, is entitled – as per your aknowledgement: afforded by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which guarantee that no person shall be deprived of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” That these guarantees extend to non-citizens is not speculative but judicially affirmed.
No victim, be it of kidnapping or murder, should be mourned or defended less, be they saint or sinner.
Bishop Joel Johnson says
This rhetorical argument would be of lasting interest were Mr. Abrego Garcia’s case to be judged according to the unfortunate outcome in another, or any other, non-affiliated case. The facts remain that, per DoJ’s admission in federal court that this defendant was deported in error; and that it has failed to exercise any reciprocity that would correct its error; and that DoJ seeminglys represent the political interests of the President of the United States in contradiction of those of its citizens and denizens; and that the President apparently denies any interest to “facilitate” Mr. Abrego Garcia’s return. Thus, the case is not solely about Mr. Abrego Garcia. The case concerns the errant actions of the administration of the President, his law firm and lawyer, the DoJ and the Attorney General. ….. Regarding the diplomatic crisis to arise were the United States to seek the cooperation of that criminal enterprise which is that the felonious “cutest dictator” of El Salvador, it would easily be remedied if the United States were to withhold the current $6M bribe to said “cutest dictator,” or to offer some other new bribe, as bribes from the U.S. President seem to work with him, a kind of quid pro quo amongst felons.
Jim Wilkins says
I read Mr. Mitchell’s piece with interest and with an appreciation for the presentation of most of the publicly known facts in the case. However, I think a few important items, although touched upon, are seemingly glossed over.
A couple of these items have to do with judicial orders. After Mr. Abrego Garcia had already been flown to a notorious prison in El Salvador, a federal judge ruled—based on evidence presented—that he had been denied due process and that he should be returned to the U.S. to be given his constitutional right of a hearing.
How was this received by the government? They refused to comply with the judge’s order and appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. The Court ordered the government to “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S., essentially affirming the earlier federal court ruling.
What did the government then do? They claimed (and still do) that they have no power to have Abrego Garcia released from the prison that they are paying millions to house what they characterize as “violent aliens.” The government further claims that their only duty is to provide transportation and not to work for his release.
This clearly flies in the face of credibility and is yet another example of the contempt for the rule of law demonstrated by this administration.
And Mr. Mitchell, please don’t insult our intelligence by calling out another totally unrelated incident which—although it was certainly horrific—has no bearing on the matter at hand. I know that this is a favorite tactic of those who would like to deny an entire group of mostly good and hard-working people their constitutional rights. But when you’re citing these examples, why not give some statistical support to show how “dangerous” these people really are?
Mr. Abrego Garcia may not be a martyr or even a saint, but he deserves the same protections under law that the rest of us do. An administration that denies these rights and defies judicial orders is much more fearsome than most of the immigrants in this country, legally or illegally.
Jim Richardson says
I do not agree with most of your letter, but of the following, we can both agree. “The case has since morphed into a confrontation between the judiciary and the executive. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis and later the Supreme Court ordered the federal government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. The Supreme Court has declared that the case must proceed as if Abrego Garcia had never been deported.”
From what I read, Mr Garcia has never been convicted of any crime while living in the United States. The law allows anyone living within its borders due process, citizen and immigrant. Mr. Garcia was denied due process and even the administration admits his removal was a mistake.
The president’s claim that there is nothing he can do, even though his policy is the cause or Mr. Garcia’s illegal removal is shameful and embarrassing. We are paying for his incarceration. One phone call from the Oval Office to this small dictator would be all that it takes. It all boils down to our president doesn’t respect the courts of law, including the Supreme Court, but instead continues to act as if he is the law of the land.
Jim Bruce says
Mr. Mitchell dispenses arguments that are designed to deflect attention and hide the only issue that matters – Can the Trump Administration deport non-citizens or citizens without due process of law? No, says the Supreme Court. This is a melodrama only because the Trump administration deliberately chose this case to test the limits of Presidential power, hoping that the public would not sympathize with a non-citizen like Abrego Garcia. Mitchell’ s arguments all seek to make Garcia and his predicament unsympathetic, but our sympathies are entirely irrelevant and Mr. Mitchell, as an attorney, knows this. Due Process requires that the accused, regardless of reputation and allegations, is afforded notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to contest them. Sen. Van Hollen and all of us are sympathetic to the victims of crime and we should not have to show “symmetric compassion” for victims of crimes as a precondition to our valuing the rule of law. Nor should Due Process be withheld until the financial and social costs of illegal immigration are addressed. Finally, Mitchell calls this a “political pageant.” No, it is a fight for the continuation of our rights under the Constitution.
Jim Bruce
Ralph Meyer says
Clayton Mitchell’s bias is showing in his lead sentence, and he makes three derogatory statements about Kilmar Garcia that would be contested had they been made in a court proceeding.
First, Mitchell says that Garcia was stopped by authorities in Tennessee with eight passengers in his car and that DHS suspected Garcia of human trafficking. The Tennessee Highway Patrol issued a warning for driving with an expired driver’s license but did not pursue further information. Perhaps he was transporting eight friends from Texas to Maryland, and perhaps they had crossed the border illegally; that is not “human trafficking.” This was not a court finding.
Second, Mitchell says that a 2019 Prince George’s County Police Gang Unit report identified Garcia as a member of MS-13. This is an accusation, not a conviction, and Garcia disputes that accusation vigorously.
Third, Mitchell says that Garcia has a documented a history of violent domestic abuse. Not exactly. His wife took out a restraining order in 2021, but she did not press charges and said, “After surviving domestic violence in a previous relationship, I acted out of caution after a disagreement with Kilmar by seeking a civil protective order in case things escalated,” she said. “Things did not escalate, and I decided not to follow through with the civil court process. We were able to work through this situation privately as a family, including by going to counseling.”
Mitchell also says that “Immigration Judge [David] Jones apparently vacated [his] 2019 ruling based on newly submitted derogatory evidence,” and that “the court purportedly reinstated the final order of removal to El Salvador.” I want to emphasize the words apparently and purportedly because these results were not published. Nevertheless, in light of all of this, the U.S. Supreme concluded that Garcia was improperly removed to El Salvador in a 9-0 decision.
Kilmar Garcia did not get due process, and Clayton Mitchell’s analysis it wrong.
Wilson Dean says
The astute analyses presented by the vast majority of people commenting on this article shine a bright light on why this article misses the entire point of the Garcia controversy. If the Trump Administration’s actions in this case are allowed to stand, then no one in this country -including law abiding citizens – will be safe from Trump’s arbitrary and arrogant efforts to crush any opposition to his authoritarian regime.
Rick Hughes says
I cannot offer a more precise or eloquent response than either of those commenting before me. I thank you all for your well presented comments. I agree with Mr. Wilson’s statement: “In my opinion, the only person who told the truth was the administration lawyer who said Garcia was wrongly deported. The lawyer was fired because he told the truth. Again, in my opinion, we seldom get any truth from this administration.” We can all agree that immigration is an issue that needs close attention and thoughtful solutions… kidnapping, trafficking, lack of due process and foreign prisons-for-hire is not the answer!
Mr. Mitchell remained true to form by spinning this through a thoroughly political lens (I really only needed to read the title of the article and the byline to know where it would lead).
Dick Deerin says
Thanks to Senator Van Hollen for being an effective representative for the people of Maryland.
Kent Robertson says
I think Trump and Mitchell both missed on the Garcia fiasco. Trump should honor the SCOTUS 9-0 ruling and get Garcia back. Unfortunately every single illegal alien will cite the Garcia ruling and our courts will be jammed for years. The initiating problem was the disregard shown by Biden and Obama for the immigration laws currently on the books, and the failure of Congress for decades to do the hard work of comprehensive immigration reform.