A federal appeals court has upheld an order requiring the Trump administration to arrange the return of a Venezuelan man who was deported from the United States to El Salvador earlier this year. The ruling marks a significant rebuke of the administration’s use of wartime deportation powers and highlights ongoing legal scrutiny over its immigration policies.
The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, voted 2-1 to reject the administration’s appeal of a Maryland judge’s directive that the U.S. government must facilitate the return of Daniel Lozano-Camargo. The court determined that his removal violated a prior legal settlement protecting asylum-seeking minors.
Lozano-Camargo, who was deported on March 15, was among approximately 130 Venezuelans expelled after President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act. The wartime statute, rarely used in modern times, allowed for expedited deportations of individuals the administration alleged were affiliated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. Several flights carrying deportees, including Lozano-Camargo, were sent to Salvadoran custody the same day the proclamation was issued.
In April, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, ruled that the government had breached a 2024 settlement agreement and ordered officials to help facilitate Lozano-Camargo’s return. That ruling required the administration to coordinate with El Salvador to bring him back so that he could pursue due process for his asylum claim.
Justice Department lawyers challenged the decision, arguing that the court overstepped its authority by requiring the executive branch to engage in diplomatic efforts. However, Judge DeAndrea Benjamin, writing for the appellate panel’s majority, rejected that view, emphasizing the government’s obligation to act.
“The Government cannot facilitate Cristian’s return telepathically — it must express in words to the government of El Salvador that Cristian be released for transport back to the United States,” Judge Benjamin wrote. Lozano-Camargo is referred to in court documents by the pseudonym “Cristian.”
Judge Julius Richardson, the lone dissenter and a Trump appointee, argued that the judiciary had no business directing diplomatic communications. He cautioned that such judicial mandates could inadvertently escalate into broader diplomatic consequences. “There is no such thing as a trifling discussion between heads of state,” Richardson wrote, warning that even minor engagements could influence international affairs.
This is the second time the 4th Circuit has left in place a lower court ruling compelling the Trump administration to reverse a wrongful deportation tied to its March flights. Another case, involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, gained international attention after his deportation was found to violate a 2019 immigration judge’s order. Despite the ruling, the administration has continued to resist efforts to bring Abrego Garcia back.
While Lozano-Camargo’s case has garnered less public attention, the legal issues involved are strikingly similar. Both cases involve Venezuelan asylum seekers deported without proper legal review under an emergency proclamation that courts are now scrutinizing.
Judge Roger Gregory, who joined the majority, issued a concurring opinion challenging Trump’s justification for invoking the Alien Enemies Act. Gregory, originally appointed during the Clinton administration and confirmed under President George W. Bush, disputed the claim that the gang Tren de Aragua’s activities met the legal definition of an “invasion” or “predatory incursion.”
“I see no evidence of any kind to suggest any ‘invasion’ or ‘predatory incursion’ is afoot,” Gregory wrote. “The President cannot, by fiat, declare legal conclusions… without providing underlying supportive facts.”
The administration could request that the full bench of the 4th Circuit reconsider the case or appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Officials from the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice have not yet issued public statements.
Attorneys for Lozano-Camargo welcomed the decision, calling it an important step toward ensuring the rights of vulnerable immigrants are respected. In a joint statement, legal advocates said they would continue working to enforce the terms of the settlement and protect asylum seekers.
“We are hopeful that the appeals court, like the district court, will uphold the rights of Cristian and other class members to pursue their asylum claims safely in the United States,” the statement read.
The case serves as a reminder of the legal boundaries facing presidential authority in immigration enforcement and the ongoing role of the courts in safeguarding due process for those seeking refuge in the United States.
