Noem v. Abrego Garcia
Emergency application to vacate injunction is granted in part and denied in part. The deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the district court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand.
Docket No.24A949
Judgment
Emergency application to vacate injunction is granted in part and denied in part on Apr 10, 2025. Justice Sotomayor wrote a statement on the decision, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson.
Apr 7, 2025Application (24A949) to vacate injunction entered by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, submitted to The Chief Justice.Apr 7, 2025Letter of applicant Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed.
Apr 7, 2025Order entered by The Chief Justice: Upon consideration of the application of counsel for the applicants, it is ordered that the April 4, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, case No. 8:25-cv-951, is hereby stayed pending further order of The Chief Justice or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Tuesday, April 8th, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).
Apr 7, 2025Response to application from respondent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al. filed.Apr 7, 2025Brief amicus curiae of Professors Erwin Chemerinsky, Martha Minow, and Laurence Tribe filed.Apr 8, 2025Reply of applicant Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, et al. filed.Apr 8, 2025Supplemental letter of respondents Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al. filed.Apr 9, 2025Motion For Leave to File Sur-Reply filed by respondent Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, et al.Apr 10, 2025Motion For Leave to File Sur-Reply denied by The Chief Justice.
Apr 10, 2025Application (24A949) referred to the Court.
Apr 10, 2025The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive,
with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The order heretofore entered by The Chief Justice is vacated. (Detached Opinion)
Statement of Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson
join, respecting the Court’s disposition of the application. (Detached Opinion)
Recommended Citation: Noem v. Abrego Garcia, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/noem-v-abrego-garcia/