President Donald Trump gestures as he boards Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport, in Morristown, N.J., Sunday, Aug. 2, 2026, en route to return to Washington (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).
A federal judge in Maryland has strictly regulated the Trump administration’s detention authority over a Mexican national who was deported in violation of the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
The 13-page opinion comes amid an increasingly long line of cases challenging a surge in efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deport immigrants with valid documentation.
In the case, a John Doe petitioner previously won habeas corpus relief by convincing U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, that his “removal to Mexico violated his constitutional right to procedural due process.”
Earlier in the litigation, the petitioner was ordered returned to the country. The court notes that the case is in line with, and cites precedent from, the “analogous” case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
In such cases, “the proper remedy” is to provide the petitioner “with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed,” the opinion reads, citing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Abrego Garcia case. And the government “must comply with its obligation to provide” due process, the opinion goes on.
The litigation was originally filed in August. The original ruling in the petitioner’s favor came the very next day. Since then, the petitioner has, in fact, been returned to the country but remains in ICE custody. And the government has filed a motion for reconsideration — effectively asking the court for a do-over.
The judge emphatically rejected each government request.
Aside from constitutional due process, Doe and his family were statutorily protected against deportation under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The government, for its part, claims it lawfully terminated Doe’s CAT protections and then followed the proper procedures to deport him.
But even on the statutory side of things, the government got it wrong, the Trump-appointed judge reiterates.
“The process that Defendants used to terminate Doe’s CAT Deferral is one that has been held by the Third Circuit to be constitutionally inadequate,” the opinion continues. “Defendants failed to provide Doe with any notice of the termination until the day he was removed from the United States, even though his CAT Deferral had been terminated ten days earlier.”
Since the original ruling, the facts show that Department of Justice attorneys previously provided different information about the circumstances of the deportation.
“Defendants previously represented to the Court that the Notice of Termination was served on July 21, 2026, eleven days before he was removed from the U.S. on August 1, 2026,” the opinion goes on. “Now, Defendants instead state that he was served with the Notice on August 1, 2026 – the same day that he was removed.”
Even before learning of the zero-day notice, the court found the purported 10-day notice “exacerbates the due process concerns” because it was clear the petitioner’s attorneys were never notified before the deportation. Gallagher reiterates her disdain here, too.
“The new facts before the Court, that Doe was served with the Notice on the day of his removal, only further exacerbate these process-based concerns,” the opinion goes on.
The judge notes that the parties have agreed the basic CAT issue is one for the court of appeals to deal with. But the district court makes clear her jurisdiction covers the illegal deportation earlier this summer.
The court elaborates:
Defendants did not provide Doe with sufficient process when they summarily terminated his CAT Deferral with no notice and served him with the Notice of Termination the same day that they deported him to Mexico. When a noncitizen has been unlawfully deported and seeks return to the United States to “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly” removed, it is within this Court’s authority to order the government to facilitate his return.
Throughout the opinion, the judge refers to various government arguments in defense of its actions and rejects them in turn. Each defense is statutory or regulatory in nature.
In one instance, the DOJ argued the lack of a regulation on point within CAT guidelines meant the deportation was aboveboard. Gallagher strongly disagreed with this argument and used the opportunity to make clear the separate due process component of the case.
“‘Due process’ is not simply an afterthought; it is a part of our fundamental constitutional order,” the opinion goes on. “It is entirely irrelevant to the Court’s analysis that there is no regulation or statute governing the process for termination of CAT Deferral by diplomatic assurances, as the constitutional guarantee of due process underlies every statute, regulation, or executive action in this country.”
To that end, the court ruled the government must keep Doe detained within 200 miles of Baltimore as the litigation unfolds.
The post Trump-appointed judge excoriates ICE for ‘unlawful’ deportation of Mexican man and blasts DOJ for its ever-changing timeline of facts first appeared on Law & Crime.
