Judge Critiques DOJ’s Handling of MS-13 Deportee’s Case Amid Supreme Court Ruling

Judge Critiques DOJ’s Handling of MS-13 Deportee’s Case Amid Supreme Court Ruling

A federal judge in Maryland expressed frustration with government attorneys during a Friday hearing regarding the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national and Maryland resident. The discussion revolved around Abrego Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador, which occurred last month due to allegations of his affiliation with the MS-13 gang.

At 29 years old, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys argue that he has no connections to the violent gang. His case has drawn scrutiny as it raises questions about the deportation process and the protections afforded to individuals facing claims of gang involvement.

Judge’s Inquiry Into Abrego Garcia’s Whereabouts

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis questioned Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign regarding Abrego Garcia’s current location. This inquiry followed a Supreme Court ruling affirming Judge Xinis’ previous instruction that federal authorities must coordinate his repatriation to Maryland.

Xinis directly asked Ensign for details about Abrego Garcia’s whereabouts and the authority under which he currently remained in custody. Ensign’s response lacked the needed information, stating, “I do not have that info.”

In response to the judge’s probing, Ensign admitted, “I do not have that knowledge, and therefore I cannot relay that info to the court.” This lack of clarity prompted Judge Xinis to remark, “That is extremely troubling.”

Government’s Duty After the Supreme Court Ruling

The Supreme Court recently acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was subjected to a withholding order, prohibiting his removal to El Salvador, thus categorizing the deportation as illegal. The high court noted that Judge Xinis’ order correctly mandates the government to facilitate his return from custody in El Salvador.

During the hearing, Ensign reiterated the government’s commitment to comply with the Supreme Court’s directive. However, when asked about the steps taken to enable Abrego Garcia’s return, he admitted, “It was unclear.” This ambiguity led Judge Xinis to conclude, “That means they haven’t done anything.”

Disagreement on Order Interpretation

The two engaged in a back-and-forth dialogue regarding the interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order. Ensign suggested the government understood that the order demanded the executive branch’s input, while Judge Xinis maintained that it required immediate actions to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.

Judge Xinis firmly stated, “I hear you and disagree,” indicating her clear expectations for the government’s compliance.

Request for Progress Updates

As the hearing continued, Judge Xinis requested daily updates on the case, demanding reports from individuals with direct knowledge. She expressed urgency by stating, “If you can do it, do it tomorrow. I don’t understand why it can’t be done.” This insistence reflects her commitment to ensuring that Abrego Garcia’s case is handled swiftly and transparently.

Despite considering the judge’s orders “impractical,” Ensign reiterated that the government intended to comply with the Supreme Court’s ruling. This ongoing tension between the judiciary and executive branches underscores the complexity of immigration enforcement and procedural due process.

Press Briefing Insights from the White House

In light of these developments, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed the situation during a Friday briefing. Her remarks underscored that the Supreme Court’s ruling clearly delineates the responsibility of the administration in facilitating Abrego Garcia’s return, not merely effectuating it.

Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, counsel for Abrego Garcia, emphasized the critical nature of the judge’s statements. He remarked that the government cannot continue to “play games while a man’s life is at stake.” His insistence on timely and meaningful status updates highlights the urgency surrounding Abrego Garcia’s return.

Background on Abrego Garcia’s Arrest

Abrego Garcia’s arrest occurred in Baltimore on March 12, shortly after finishing his shift as a sheet metal worker. Prior to his arrest, he had picked up his five-year-old son from his grandmother’s house. This added a personal dimension to the case, exacerbating concerns about the impact of the deportation on his family, especially given that the child has autism and other disabilities.

The circumstances of Abrego Garcia’s journey to the United States are harrowing. According to court documents, he fled El Salvador to escape gang violence, which included stalking and threats against him and his family. The dangers he faced are emblematic of the broader issues surrounding gang-related violence in Central America.

After entering the United States illegally in 2011, Abrego Garcia began to build a life in Maryland with his brother, an American citizen. However, his status remained precarious, culminating in his deportation and the ensuing legal battles.

The Path Ahead

The unfolding saga of Kilmar Abrego Garcia highlights the complicated nature of immigration law and the responsibilities of governmental agencies. As the case proceeds, it will be crucial for the Department of Justice to provide consistent and transparent updates regarding Abrego Garcia’s situation.

The public and advocacy groups will closely monitor the government’s actions in the coming days. Ensuring Abrego Garcia’s timely return not only serves justice in his individual case but also reflects on the broader principles of human rights and due process.

For many, this case symbolizes the often-turbulent intersection of immigration enforcement and legal accountability, drawing attention to the ongoing struggles faced by individuals entangled in our complicated immigration systems.