Chief Justice John Roberts issued an emergency administrative stay, allowing the administration more time to challenge the lower court’s decision, which stipulated that the Salvadoran national with confirmed gang affiliations be returned to the United States by midnight on Monday, as reported by Axios.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, who serves as the administration’s primary legal representative, submitted the appeal early on Monday, arguing that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had overstepped her jurisdiction and interfered with the president’s authority to oversee foreign policy and national security.

Central to the legal contention is Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador who had previously been deported by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The Department of Justice asserts that he is “a verified member of MS-13,” referencing an immigration judge’s finding that a “past, proven, and reliable source of information” validated his gang affiliation.

Despite being granted withholding of removal to El Salvador in 2019, the Trump administration contended that this relief was rendered void after MS-13 was classified as a foreign terrorist organization earlier this year. Sauer emphasized that “members of MS-13 are no longer eligible for withholding of removal.” The emergency application presented to the Supreme Court by Sauer characterized the lower court’s injunction as “remarkable,” stating that the ruling “obligates the United States to convince El Salvador to release Abrego Garcia—a native of El Salvador held in El Salvador—on a judicially mandated timeline.

“The Constitution assigns the responsibility of conducting foreign diplomacy and safeguarding the Nation from foreign terrorists to the President, rather than to federal district courts,” Sauer stated. “This order establishes the

The foundational order from Xinis instructed the Trump administration to “facilitate and ensure the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025.” However, the administration criticized the ruling as an unconstitutional encroachment on foreign policy, emphasizing that “district courts would essentially possess extraterritorial jurisdiction over the United States’ diplomatic relations with the entire world” if this precedent were permitted to remain.