A federal judge has temporarily paused an order that mandated the Trump administration to reveal its actions regarding efforts to bring back Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man mistakenly deported to El Salvador. This seven-day halt was ordered by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, acknowledging the agreement from Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s legal team, signaling a potential shift in the ongoing legal conflict that has previously escalated to the Supreme Court.
Drew Ensign, a deputy assistant attorney general, filed a confidential motion seeking a stay on the directive that would have compelled the U.S. to disclose plans for Abrego Garcia’s return. Additionally, the administration seeks relief from submitting daily progress updates. Judge Xinis has not elucidated her legal reasons for granting the pause until April 30 but maintained the requirement for daily status updates.
The deportation of Abrego Garcia to El Salvador last month was later described by U.S. officials as an “administrative error,” yet they claim he is affiliated with the MS-13 gang. Lawyers for Abrego Garcia filed a sealed opposition document, yet Xinis noted the decision was made with mutual consent.
On Tuesday, the judge criticized the administration’s attorneys for disregarding orders, hindering the legal process, and acting in “bad faith” by withholding information. The administration argues that much of the data is protected under state secrets, government deliberations, and attorney-client privilege, an argument previously dismissed by Xinis, who urged specific justification for each privilege claim.
Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s border czar, did not directly comment on the judge’s criticisms but reaffirmed that Abrego Garcia would face detention and deportation if returned. Approximately two weeks ago, the U.S. Supreme Court had instructed the Trump administration to ensure his return, contradicting claims that retrieval was impossible.
However, Trump administration officials have challenged this directive, pointing to El Salvador’s president, who stated a lack of authority to return Abrego Garcia. They maintain that any potential steps for his return are protected by various confidentiality laws, a stance Judge Xinis criticized for lacking factual basis and failing to comply with court orders.
“For weeks, Defendants have hidden behind unsupported claims of privilege,” Xinis stated, challenging the notion that such privileges were used to avoid compliance and obstruct the discovery process.
Before his deportation, Abrego Garcia had lived in the U.S. for about 14 years, working in construction and supporting a family, including three children with disabilities. A 2019 ruling had shielded him from deportation due to likely persecution by Salvadoran gangs but was expelled regardless. While he has faced serious allegations, Abrego Garcia has consistently denied any criminal affiliations, a point his attorneys emphasize as they refute claims he was involved with MS-13 in New York, a place he’d never resided.
This case isn’t an isolated incident of the Trump administration clashing with federal orders on deportation matters. A recent judgment from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denounced the administration’s inaction on securing Abrego Garcia’s freedom, while a D.C. district court found probable cause for holding the administration in criminal contempt for disregarding orders about deportation planes.
Critics, including Democrats and legal scholars, warn of a potential constitutional crisis spurred by these repeated dismissals of judicial orders, accusations countered by the White House, attributing the controversy instead to judicial overreach.