Inset: President-elect Donald Trump on “Meet the Press” Sunday, Dec. 8, 2024 (NBC News/YouTube). Background: Immigration records for Kilmar Abrego Garcia (WTTG/YouTube).
A federal judge on Friday tore into the Trump administration over its deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and its subsequent claim that it needed more time to comply with her order for details on his whereabouts and their plan to have him returned to the United States.
The administration on Friday morning failed to abide by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’ order to provide information about the Maryland dad who was mistakenly deported to a notorious work prison in El Salvador under an 18th-century wartime authority. Instead of providing the information demanded by the court, the Justice Department filed a motion requesting that the court give the government more time to “evaluate” the situation in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Thursday evening order upholding Xinis’ directive requiring the administration to “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia. The DOJ also suggested that Xinis’s order for information was “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Xinis did not mince words in her response to the administration (citations removed):
First, the Defendants’ act of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was wholly illegal from the moment it happened, and Defendants have been on notice of the same. Indeed, as the Supreme Court credits, “the United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.” Second, the Defendants’ suggestion that they need time to meaningfully review a four-page Order that reaffirms this basic principle blinks at reality. Third, the Defendants misconstrue the Supreme Court’s Order stating that the original deadline at ECF No. 21 is “no longer effective,” as somehow suggesting that the Court’s amended Order requiring prompt attention to this matter is “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court’s directive. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the Supreme Court plainly stated, “the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps,” —all against the backdrop of this Court’s needing to “ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law.”
The high court’s unsigned order remanded the case back to Xinis, telling her to clarify what she meant when she directed the government to “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return, but also said the Justice Department should “be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”
Shortly after the high court released its order, Xinis issued a two-page order instructing the Justice Department to “take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.” She also scheduled an in-person hearing for 1 p.m. Friday.
From the order:
Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS Defendants to file, by no later than 9:30 AM ET on Friday, April 11, 2025, a supplemental declaration from an individual with personal knowledge, addressing the following: (1) the current physical location and custodial status of Abrego Garcia; (2) what steps, if any, Defendants have taken to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s immediate return to the United States; and (3) what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return.
Rather than comply with the district court, the DOJ filed a two-page motion saying it needed “a reasonable period of time to evaluate the Supreme Court’s order” before it could provide the filing requested by Xinis.
“The initial deadline contained in the Amended Preliminary Injunction, which requires Defendants to provide the Court with a plan for diplomatic engagement a mere 30 minutes into the business day following the Supreme Court’s decision last night, is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s instruction that this Court ‘clarify its directive with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs,”” the filing states (emphasis included in original). “That deference requires that the Executive be given a meaningful opportunity to review the Supreme Court’s decision before it is ordered to report what steps it will take in response to that decision.”
The Justice Department further claimed that Xinis’ Thursday evening order was “impracticable” and “inconsistent” with the Supreme Court’s order. The administration requested that the court modify its order and postpone the filing deadline to April 15 and the hearing until April 16.
Xinis mostly rejected the administration’s requests, giving the DOJ until 11:30 a.m. — a two-hour extension — to provide details about Abrego Garcia’s detention and return to the U.S. while denying the request to reschedule today’s hearing.
The case has garnered national attention, quickly becoming one of the most high-profile lawsuits in the blizzard of legal challenges filed against Trump and his administration since he retook office in January.
The 29-year-old was sent to El Salvador on March 15, in error, as part of Trump’s proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA) in an effort to rush through mass deportations of Venezuelan men accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua (TdA) gang without due process.
Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador, was in the U.S. with protected legal status at the time of his deportation. His wife and 5-year-old child are both U.S. citizens.
Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday afternoon temporarily halted a preliminary injunction issued by Xinis. Last week, Xinis had given the DOJ just over three days to bring Abrego Garcia back to the country. In her April 4 order, Xinis directed the government to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return, unambiguously referring to his deportation as “an illegal act.”
Notably, the government has proffered little, if any, evidence that Abrego Garcia was a gang member. He has no criminal record in the U.S. or El Salvador and has submitted sworn statements that he was fleeing El Salvador due to gang violence.
A Justice Department attorney last week even conceded to a federal judge that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was due to an “administrative error” and said the government “made a choice here to produce no evidence,” which “speaks for itself.” However, that attorney has since been suspended from working at the Justice Department.
“Those inappropriate statements did not and do not reflect the position of the United States,” the filing states. “Whether a particular line attorney is privy to sensitive information or feels that whoever he spoke with at client agencies gave him sufficient answers to satisfy whatever personal standard he was applying cannot possibly be the yardstick for measuring the propriety of this extraordinary injunction.”
Earlier this week, federal judges in New York and Texas both issued temporary restraining orders halting deportations without due process under the AEA
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
