A U.S. federal judge has issued a scathing rebuke of the Trump administration after immigration authorities admitted to mistakenly deporting a legally protected Venezuelan man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

In a sharply worded 22-page ruling released Sunday, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis reaffirmed her earlier mandate that Garcia must be returned to the United States no later than Monday night. She declared the deportation unlawful, describing it as a “grievous error” that “shocks the conscience.”

“Garcia was seized without any lawful authority and held without legal basis,” Xinis wrote, slamming the deportation as a flagrant violation of both due process and judicial orders.

Garcia was deported in mid-March along with more than 260 others to El Salvador’s Center for the Confinement of Terrorism (CECOT), a high-security mega-prison infamous for housing suspected gang members. U.S. officials alleged Garcia had ties to MS-13—a gang labeled a terrorist organization under Trump-era policy—but his attorney denies the claim, and Garcia has never been charged with any crime.

In fact, Garcia was granted protection from deportation by a U.S. immigration judge in 2019, a decision that should have legally barred his removal.

Despite the court’s ruling, Trump administration officials have claimed they are unable to secure Garcia’s return, citing a lack of authority to extract him from Salvadoran custody. The Justice Department has appealed Judge Xinis’ order, with a decision from the appellate court expected by Sunday evening.

Judge Xinis rejected the administration’s argument as baseless. “As defendants acknowledge, they had no legal authority to arrest him, no justification to detain him, and no grounds to send him to El Salvador—let alone deliver him into one of the most dangerous prisons in the Western Hemisphere,” she wrote.

The ruling adds to mounting criticism of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics, particularly concerning the treatment of individuals with legal protections. Legal experts say the case could have far-reaching implications for executive accountability and the rights of noncitizens under U.S. law.