A cautionary tale for legal professionals and law students on the importance of due process, judicial authority, and systemic accountability.
When Court Orders Are Ignored: A Legal System Under Strain
In a glaring example of administrative negligence—or, some might argue, institutional disregard for judicial authority—Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported a Salvadoran man, Jordin Melgar-Salmeron, just 28 minutes after a federal appeals court ordered a stay on his removal. This case is the fourth known instance of such an unlawful deportation under the Trump administration, highlighting troubling patterns of procedural failure, potential contempt of court, and systemic accountability gaps.
Melgar-Salmeron, an undocumented immigrant who had resided in Virginia for several years, was placed in immigration detention in 2022 following a conviction for possessing an unregistered shotgun. Though initially also charged with illegal entry, he pled guilty only to the firearms charge. Upon completing his sentence, immigration authorities detained him pending removal proceedings. In January 2024, under the Biden administration, these proceedings were paused amidst broader litigation over immigration policy. However, the Trump administration later sought to expedite his removal.
On May 7, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a formal stay, instructing the government not to deport Melgar-Salmeron until at least May 8, allowing time to evaluate his claim of potential torture if returned to El Salvador. Just 28 minutes after that judicial order was issued, ICE put him on a plane anyway.
According to ICE’s own account, a series of administrative oversights led to the illegal deportation:
- The deportation flight had long been scheduled for May 7, yet court documents mistakenly stated the deportation would not occur until May 9.
- The flight manifest that included Melgar-Salmeron’s name was emailed to several officers—except the one assigned to his case.
- Melgar-Salmeron was marked as a “no-show” when not initially located at the detention facility, but was later found, escorted onto the plane, and deported—without updating the official manifest.
ICE has acknowledged the deportation violated the court’s stay. Justice Department attorney Kitty Lees cited “several inadvertent administrative oversights” but declined to specify whether any officials would face disciplinary action. Melgar-Salmeron is now imprisoned in El Salvador.
His lawyer, Matthew Borowski, is pursuing a contempt motion and demanding the government facilitate his client’s return. “This was not a simple clerical error,” Borowski contends. “It’s a breach of constitutional due process and a mockery of judicial authority.”
A Pattern, Not an Anomaly
Melgar-Salmeron’s case joins at least three others where deportations occurred in direct violation of court orders:
- Kilmar Abrego Garcia – Deported to El Salvador despite a 2019 ruling barring removal due to gang-related threats. He remains imprisoned.
- Daniel Lozano-Camargo – A Venezuelan minor protected under a court settlement but deported in violation of that agreement. He too remains in custody abroad.
- O.C.G. – A Guatemalan man deported to Mexico without being allowed to raise his fears of torture due to his sexual orientation. A judge ruled his deportation lacked due process, and efforts are underway to return him.
Each case follows a similar trajectory: court orders or protections disregarded, deportations executed rapidly, and government attorneys offering apologies—without meaningful remedies or accountability.
While the administration has made moves to comply with a court’s directive to return O.C.G., it has resisted returning Garcia and Lozano-Camargo, claiming that it lacks the authority to compel foreign governments to release individuals.
Legal Ramifications: Contempt, Due Process, and Government Immunity
The implications here are not just political—they’re constitutional. Deporting someone in violation of a federal court order raises serious due process concerns and may open the door to civil contempt proceedings. Courts have the authority to enforce their orders through sanctions, but achieving meaningful remedies, particularly once an individual is outside U.S. jurisdiction, is extraordinarily complex.
Moreover, if systemic failures are shown to be routine rather than isolated, it could justify a broader judicial review or legislative action aimed at strengthening the communication pipelines between DHS, DOJ, ICE Air Operations, and the courts. The stakes are especially high when individuals face life-threatening consequences in their countries of origin.
Conclusion: A Legal System in Jeopardy
This case underscores the fragility of judicial integrity when executive agencies bypass or miscommunicate binding orders. For legal practitioners, it’s a sobering reminder of the importance of judicial enforcement, checks and balances, and the centrality of due process in immigration proceedings.
At its core, this is not just about immigration policy—it’s about respect for the rule of law.
#ImmigrationLaw #DueProcess #RuleOfLaw #ICE #LegalEthics #ContemptOfCourt #DeportationDefense #FederalCourt #LawyersOfInstagram #LegalNews
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment