It was a day that will go down in history – not for an upheaval, not for a sudden turn of events, but for two judgments that positioned the promise of the Constitution against the cynicism of power. On June 4, 2025, the U.S. judiciary intervened in two separate cases to demand what had increasingly become the exception under Donald Trump's second term: adherence to the rule of law.
The first case concerns a name that has long been etched into the memory of a shocked public: Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The construction worker from Maryland was deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, under the Alien Enemies Act – in defiance of a judicial deportation stay, despite valid protected status, without legal hearing. Imprisoned in the notorious mega-prison CECOT, without contact with the outside world. Judge Paula Xinis of the United States District Court in Maryland (Case No. 8:25-cv-00951-PX) had already ordered his return on April 4. But nothing happened – only silence.
On June 4, however, the same judge ruled in a parallel motion by a consortium of journalists from AP, CBS, and SCOTUSblog: The government must release key documents of the case. The public, Xinis stated, has an "overriding interest in monitoring state enforcement against a protected individual." She rejected the Trump administration's appeal and ordered the partial unsealing of seven government documents. In a democracy, the message is clear, silence is not an option – especially when it serves to conceal injustice.
The second case does not concern an individual but a group. Over 260 Venezuelan migrants were abruptly removed from U.S. prisons in March 2025 and deported to El Salvador under the same Alien Enemies Act – without hearing, without counsel, without evidence of the alleged affiliation with the gang "Tren de Aragua." Only a tweet from the president labeled them "terrorists." Yet no legal process had ever established this.
Now, Judge James E. Boasberg of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB) ruled: These deportations were unlawful. The affected individuals must be given the opportunity to contest their deportation, examine evidence, and respond to the allegations. Boasberg found that the government had violated fundamental principles of the Constitution. The Trump administration now has one week to explain how it will rectify this constitutional breach.
The two cases are not identical – yet they are connected. Both reveal the depth of the erosion of law under Trump. And both serve as a reminder that even a president who presumes to decide human lives by decree cannot entirely escape the judiciary. It is a flickering light in dark times – but it burns. And perhaps, it is to be hoped, a judgment will become more than just a footnote in history. Perhaps it will be a beginning.
English 
German 
