A federal judge in Maryland has temporarily halted her order that required the Trump administration to disclose information regarding its attempts to retrieve Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. This decision was made on Wednesday, following a sealed motion from Drew Ensign, a deputy assistant attorney general, requesting a seven-day stay on the judge's directive, including the provision of testimony and documents regarding the retrieval efforts. The administration also sought relief from providing daily updates on progress.
In response, Garcia's lawyers filed an opposing motion, also under seal. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis granted the stay until April 30 but maintained the requirement for daily status updates. Though Xinis did not elaborate on her legal reasoning, she stated that her decision was made "with the agreement of the parties." Notably, this ruling came just a day after Xinis criticized the administration's lawyers for alleged non-compliance with her orders and for acting in "bad faith." She noted that the administration had ignored her directives and obstructed the legal process.
The Trump administration had expelled Garcia last month due to what they labeled as an "administrative error," asserting that Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang. In an earlier ruling, Xinis demanded the administration provide specific justifications for claims of privilege regarding proprietary information, which the administration contended was protected due to state secrets and attorney-client privilege laws.
The U.S. Supreme Court previously ordered the Trump administration to facilitate Garcia's return after rejecting the notion that the government was powerless to retrieve him following the deportation mistake. Administration officials argued that the matter lies with the government of El Salvador, which has claimed it, too, lacks the authority to return Garcia. Furthermore, the administration has stated that information about any steps taken to return Garcia is shielded by attorney-client privilege and other secrecy laws. However, Judge Xinis rebuffed these claims, suggesting they reflect a "willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations." She emphasized that the administration had failed to meet specific legal and factual requirements to support its privilege assertions.
Garcia, aged 29, had resided in the U.S. for approximately 14 years prior to his deportation, during which he worked in construction and raised three children with disabilities with his wife. A U.S. immigration judge had previously protected him from deportation in 2019, citing likely persecution in El Salvador due to gang violence. Despite living in the U.S. without any criminal charges against him, his deportation has raised significant legal and ethical concerns, particularly as the allegations of his gang membership were based on claims from a criminal informant who misidentified his residence.
This incident is not isolated, as it follows a pattern of court criticism regarding the Trump administration’s handling of deportation cases. Recently, a ruling from a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals condemned the administration's claims of inaction as "shocking." This occurred shortly after another federal judge found the administration in criminal contempt for violating orders against deploying deportees on flights to El Salvador.
Critics, including Democrats and legal scholars, argue that the Trump administration’s actions are contributing to a constitutional crisis by disregarding court rulings, while administration officials assert that the issues lie within the judiciary’s actions. The ongoing legal battle surrounding Kilmar Abrego Garcia continues to illustrate the complexities and contentious nature of U.S. immigration policy under the Trump administration.
