On Wednesday, a federal judge reiterated her demand for the Trump administration to disclose any steps taken towards complying with her order to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, based in Maryland, had earlier agreed to a temporary halt on her directive, following a request from the administration. However, with the seven-day pause set to expire by 5 p.m., the judge established deadlines in May for officials to provide sworn statements detailing actions they’ve undertaken to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, 29, has been incarcerated in El Salvador for close to seven weeks, with his case highlighting tensions within President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and his growing conflicts with U.S. judicial authority. President Trump mentioned in an interview with ABC News on Tuesday the possibility of speaking with El Salvador’s president to arrange Abrego Garcia’s return, yet he maintained allegations that Abrego Garcia is affiliated with the MS-13 gang. “And if he were the gentleman that you say he is, I would do that,” Trump expressed to ABC’s Terry Moran from the Oval Office.
In 2019, police in Maryland identified Abrego Garcia as an MS-13 gang member, using his tattoos, attire, and a criminal informant as basis. However, Abrego Garcia has not faced any charges related to these claims. His legal representatives argue that the informant’s claim tying Abrego Garcia to an MS-13 group in New York is unfounded, as he has never lived there. This gang association led to his deportation in March to a notorious El Salvador prison, despite a 2019 U.S. immigration judge’s order that shielded him from deportation to El Salvador.
Court documents reveal that Abrego Garcia demonstrated to the immigration court that returning to El Salvador posed a significant risk of persecution from local gangs that had tormented him and his family. Having fled to the U.S. at the age of 16, he resided in Maryland for approximately 14 years, where he worked in construction, got married, and raised three children.
Judge Xinis initially ordered the Trump administration to repatriate him nearly a month ago, on April 4. Subsequently, the U.S. Supreme Court mandated on April 10 that actions be taken to return him. Yet, the situation escalated when Xinis reprimanded a government attorney who couldn’t clarify any measures undertaken by the Trump administration. Consequently, she ordered officials to submit sworn testimony and documentation concerning their efforts.
Despite appealing the decision, a federal appeals court upheld Xinis’ demand for this information, sharply criticizing any opposition with a statement that emphasized the necessity of actualizing the Supreme Court’s decision without interfering with the judge’s actions. However, the Trump administration objected, stating the requested information included protected state secrets and internal government deliberations and accused government lawyers of “bad faith” over non-compliance.
Judge Xinis has instructed U.S. attorneys to provide clear reasons for their claims of privileged information, although the directive is expected to encounter further resistance. When questioned by a reporter on Wednesday regarding discussions with El Salvador about Abrego Garcia’s return, Secretary of State Marco Rubio deflected, asserting that foreign policy should not be disclosed to judges. Rubio stated during a Cabinet meeting, “Well, I’ll never tell you that. And you know who else I’ll never tell? A judge. Because the conduct of all foreign policy belongs to the president of the United States and the executive branch, not some judge.”
Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys indicated that the administration was progressing towards his return when they petitioned for halting the court proceedings. The Justice Department did not promptly reply to an inquiry regarding the law firm’s remarks. Murray Osorio PLLC, representing Abrego Garcia, explained in a news release, “We agreed to that request because we understood it to be made in good faith. Unfortunately, one week later, it remains unclear what, if anything, the government has done in the past seven days to bring our client home to his family.”