Latest news with #JudgePaulaXinis
The Independent
04-06-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Unsealed records in Abrego Garcia case offer few details that are new, unknown
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the unsealing of several court documents in the lawsuit over Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation, rejecting the Trump administration's arguments that it would risk national security. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland issued her order after media organizations, including The Associated Press, argued the public has a right to access court records under the First Amendment. Filings unsealed so far offer little information that's new or unknown publicly. Xinis described one document as 'relatively boilerplate.' It was a request by the Trump administration to temporarily halt discovery, an early phase of a lawsuit where parties share evidence. 'It does not disclose any potentially privileged or otherwise sensitive information for which a compelling government interest outweighs the right to access,' Xinis wrote. Xinis noted that some documents were public before the court was asked to seal them the next day. Those filings contained a back-and-forth between Abrego Garcia's attorneys and the U.S. government over efforts to return him from El Salvador. Trump administration lawyers often objected to answering questions, arguing that they involve state secrets, sensitive diplomatic negotiations and other protected information. For example, the U.S. attorneys mentioned 'appropriate diplomatic discussions with El Salvador.' But they wrote that disclosing the details 'could negatively impact any outcome.' Xinis also ordered the partial release of a transcript from an April 30 court hearing. Some of it will be reacted to protect potentially classified information. Wednesday's ruling was unrelated to the Trump administration pending invocation of the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine often used in military cases. The administration has argued that releasing information about the Abrego Garcia matter in open court — or even to the judge in private – could jeopardize national security. Xinis is yet to rule on the state secrets claim. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have argued that the Trump administration has done nothing to return the Maryland construction worker. They say the government is invoking the privilege to hide behind the misconduct of mistakenly deporting him and refusing to bring him back. Abrego Garcia's deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from expulsion to his native country. The immigration judge determined that Abrego Garcia faced likely persecution by a local Salvadoran gang that terrorized his family. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued over his deportation. Xinis ordered his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. President Donald Trumptold ABC News in late April that he could retrieve Abrego Garcia with a phone call to El Salvador's president. But Trump said he wouldn't do it because Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he was never charged.
Associated Press
04-06-2025
- General
- Associated Press
Unsealed records in Abrego Garcia case offer few details that are new, unknown
A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the unsealing of several court documents in the lawsuit over Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation, rejecting the Trump administration's arguments that it would risk national security. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland issued her order after media organizations, including The Associated Press, argued the public has a right to access court records under the First Amendment. Filings unsealed so far offer little information that's new or unknown publicly. Xinis described one document as 'relatively boilerplate.' It was a request by the Trump administration to temporarily halt discovery, an early phase of a lawsuit where parties share evidence. 'It does not disclose any potentially privileged or otherwise sensitive information for which a compelling government interest outweighs the right to access,' Xinis wrote. Xinis noted that some documents were public before the court was asked to seal them the next day. Those filings contained a back-and-forth between Abrego Garcia's attorneys and the U.S. government over efforts to return him from El Salvador. Trump administration lawyers often objected to answering questions, arguing that they involve state secrets, sensitive diplomatic negotiations and other protected information. For example, the U.S. attorneys mentioned 'appropriate diplomatic discussions with El Salvador.' But they wrote that disclosing the details 'could negatively impact any outcome.' Xinis also ordered the partial release of a transcript from an April 30 court hearing. Some of it will be reacted to protect potentially classified information. Wednesday's ruling was unrelated to the Trump administration pending invocation of the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine often used in military cases. The administration has argued that releasing information about the Abrego Garcia matter in open court — or even to the judge in private – could jeopardize national security. Xinis is yet to rule on the state secrets claim. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have argued that the Trump administration has done nothing to return the Maryland construction worker. They say the government is invoking the privilege to hide behind the misconduct of mistakenly deporting him and refusing to bring him back. Abrego Garcia's deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from expulsion to his native country. The immigration judge determined that Abrego Garcia faced likely persecution by a local Salvadoran gang that terrorized his family. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued over his deportation. Xinis ordered his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. President Donald Trumptold ABC News in late April that he could retrieve Abrego Garcia with a phone call to El Salvador's president. But Trump said he wouldn't do it because Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he was never charged.
New York Times
03-06-2025
- General
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: Newark's Mayor Sues Over Arrest Near Immigration Jail
The entrance to the Salvadoran prison where Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia is being held. The tensions between the court and the Trump administration over the case could soon come to a head. In case after case, the Trump administration has taken a similar approach to the numerous legal challenges that have emerged in recent weeks to President Trump's aggressive deportation plans. Over and over, officials have either violated orders or used an array of obfuscations and delays to prevent federal judges from deciding whether violations took place. So far, no one in the White House or any federal agency has had to pay a price for this obstructionist behavior, but penalties could still be in the offing. Three judges in three different courthouses who have been overseeing deportation cases have said they are considering whether to hold the administration in contempt. All of this first came to the fore when Judge Paula Xinis opened an investigation in mid-April into whether Trump officials had violated her order to 'facilitate' the release of a Maryland man who had been wrongfully deported to a prison in El Salvador. In a sternly worded ruling in Federal District Court in Maryland, Judge Xinis instructed the Justice Department to tell her what steps the White House had taken, and planned to take, to free the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, from Salvadoran custody. And she wanted answers quickly, declaring that her inquiry would take only two weeks. That was seven weeks ago, and lawyers for Mr. Abrego Garcia say they are no closer now than they were then to understanding why their client was sent to El Salvador or what the government has done to fix what officials have acknowledged was an 'administrative error.' Image Chris Newman, right, a lawyer for Mr. Abrego Garcia's family, with Senator Chris Van Hollen in El Salvador in April. Mr. Abrego Garcia's lawyers have accused the Trump administration of 'a pattern of deliberate delay.' Credit... Daniele Volpe for The New York Times Instead, the lawyers say, the Justice Department has hidden what it knows about Mr. Abrego Garcia's deportation behind repeated claims of privilege. They have also said that the department has offered witnesses for depositions who have little firsthand knowledge of the case and has sought at every turn to slow-walk disclosing documents and responding to questions. 'It is reflective of a pattern of deliberate delay and bad faith refusal to comply with court orders,' they wrote in a filing late last week. 'The patina of promises by government lawyers to do tomorrow that which they were already obligated to do yesterday has worn thin.' Such recalcitrance has left lawyers in the Justice Department who are working on these cases in a difficult position. Several times during hearings in the past few months, the lawyers have had to admit to federal judges that their 'clients' in agencies like the Department of Homeland Security have simply refused to provide the information they were asked for. After one of those lawyers, Erez Reuveni, admitted to Judge Xinis during a hearing in April that he was frustrated by how he could not fully answer her questions, the Justice Department responded to his candor by suspending and then firing him. His dismissal prompted a spate of resignations from the department's Office of Immigration Litigation, which has effectively been hollowed out by the administration's give-no-ground approach. In many ways, the intransigent tactics used in these deportation cases echo those employed by the defense lawyers who represented Mr. Trump in the four criminal cases he faced before he was re-elected. In those cases, only one of which survived to go to trial, the lawyers used every means at their disposal to gum up the works: They challenged minor matters, filed appeals at every turn and repeatedly asked judges for delays. Two of those lawyers, Todd Blanche and Emil Bove III, now occupy top positions in the Justice Department. Last week, Mr. Trump said he would nominate Mr. Bove to be an appeals court judge. Image The government's tactics in the deportation cases echo those used by President Trump's former defense lawyers, including Todd Blanche, left, and Emil Bove III, center, who are now high-ranking officials at the Justice Department. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times It remains unclear for now how Judge Xinis intends to handle the department's stubbornness in Mr. Abrego Garcia's case, but the tensions could soon come to a head. Just last week, one day before it was supposed to submit its final answers to her questions, the administration asked for a two-week extension, saying that lawyers for the Justice Department had 'expended significant resources' going through the materials she requested. Responding to her demands, the lawyers wrote, had been 'extremely burdensome,' especially, they noted, because the department — the government equivalent of a giant white-shoe law firm — was hindered by 'limited staff available for document review.' Judge Xinis denied the request on the same day it was made. She is not the only judge to have faced obstructions by the Trump administration. One day after Judge Xinis began her investigation in Maryland, a federal judge in Washington, James E. Boasberg, threatened to open a similar inquiry into a violation of an order he had issued in a different deportation case. In that case, Judge Boasberg said he was considering contempt proceedings to punish the administration for failing to comply with his instructions in March to stop planes of Venezuelan migrants from being sent to El Salvador. One week later, another federal judge in Maryland, Stephanie A. Gallagher, issued a ruling that echoed what Judge Xinis had decided in the Abrego Garcia case. Judge Gallagher told the Trump administration to 'facilitate' the return of a different immigrant — a young Venezuelan man known only as Cristian — who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador on the same set of flights as Mr. Abrego Garcia. But in the days that followed, Judge Gallagher confronted a familiar pattern of evasion and delay. First, the judge looked on as the Justice Department lost its bid to have a federal appeals court put her order on hold. Then, in the wake of that defeat, she ordered the administration to give her an update on the steps it had taken to seek Cristian's release. Image Recalcitrance from the Justice Department has left its lawyers who are working on deportation cases in a difficult position. Credit... Eric Lee/The New York Times When the Justice Department filed its update last week (late, as it turned out), it was largely based on a declaration by a federal immigration official that included no new details about the case. The declaration merely repeated facts that everyone already knew: that Cristian was in the custody of El Salvador and that homeland security officials had asked the State Department for help in complying with the judge's initial order. Displeased by all of this, Judge Gallagher fired off a new decision on Wednesday, accusing the administration of having 'utterly disregarded' her order for an update. She gave Trump officials until 5 p.m. on Monday to send another version. And just before that deadline, the Justice Department filed a new declaration from the same immigration official, asserting that Secretary of State Marco Rubio was 'personally handling discussions with the government of El Salvador' concerning Cristian. 'Secretary Rubio has read and understands this court's order,' the declaration said, 'and wants to assure this court that he is committed to making prompt and diligent efforts on behalf of the United States to comply with that order.' But in a dueling submission to Judge Gallagher, Cristian's lawyers said the Trump administration had yet to take any steps to bring their client back. The lawyers asked her to hold a hearing with testimony from 'key decision maker(s)' as to why and to punish officials, if needed, with a finding of contempt. Less than two weeks ago, a federal judge in Boston, Brian E. Murphy, said he might seek contempt sanctions himself against the administration after determining that Trump officials had violated one of his orders by putting a group of immigrants on a deportation flight to Africa with less than one day's notice. In April, Judge Murphy expressly forbade such a move, issuing a ruling that barred officials from deporting people to countries not their own without first giving them a 'meaningful opportunity' to object. Judge Murphy stopped short of following the path his colleagues took and ordering the government to 'facilitate' the return of the deported men. Instead, he took the advice of a Justice Department lawyer who suggested the administration could fix the problem it had created by providing the men with hearings in Africa at which they could challenge their removal. Not surprisingly, Judge Murphy seemed a bit confused and more than a little outraged just days later when department lawyers asked him to reconsider this solution, claiming that he had imposed it on the White House and that it was more cumbersome than they had initially imagined. Judge Murphy had to remind the lawyers that the whole proposal had been their idea, not his. 'Defendants have mischaracterized this court's order,' he wrote last week, 'while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry.'
The Independent
16-05-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Judge spars with Trump administration over release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia: ‘My head is spinning'
More than a month after the Supreme Court agreed that Donald Trump 's administration must be ordered to 'facilitate' the release of a wrongfully deported Salvadoran immigrant, the government is refusing to do so — and arguing with a federal judge that they don't have to. The weeks-long court battle is leaving a judge's head 'spinning,' Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis told attorneys on Friday. Last month, Supreme Court justices unanimously agreed that the government's removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia was 'illegal.' Now, government attorneys are sparring with Judge Xinis to try to conceal what, if anything, the administration is doing to return him, and why that information needs to be kept secret. Meanwhile, administration officials are 'shouting from the rooftops' in public about ensuring that Abrego Garcia never returns to the United States, according to his attorneys. 'He will never walk freely in the U.S.,' Department of Justice lawyer Jonathan Guynn told District Judge Paula Xinis in a Maryland courtroom on Friday. 'That sounds to me like an admission you will not take steps' to 'facilitate' Abrego Garcia's return,' Xinis replied. 'That's about as clear as it can get,' said Gyunn. Despite government attorneys and the White House admitting that Abrego Garcia was deported from Maryland 'due to an administrative error,' the Justice Department is now clashing with its own determination — and multiple court rulings from federal judges in the Supreme Court — about the legality of his removal. 'Abrego Garcia was removed without lawful authority — you conceded it,' Xinis told Justice Department lawyers on Friday. 'Not to split hairs with your honor, but he was removed lawfully,' Guynn said. 'He shouldn't be in the United States.' 'He was removed in error,' Xinis replied. Guynn later conceded that he was reported in 'error' but said it did not rise to government 'misconduct.' Government attorneys have produced more than 1,400 documents in the case, but Abrego Garcia's legal team has only received 164, most of which are photocopies of their own filings. 'My head is spinning,' Xinis told the court at one point. Lawyers for Abrego Garcia's family asked the judge to keep the government on 'as tight a leash as possible' to ensure the administration is responding to court-ordered questions. Abrego Garcia fled El Salvador as a teenager in 2011 and was working as a sheet-metal apprentice in Maryland, where he has been living with his wife and 5-year-old child, both U.S. citizens. The couple is also raising two other children from a previous relationship. After a traffic stop in March, he was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement and then deported to El Salvador's brutal Terrorism Confinement Center. He was later moved to another prison designed to imprison non-gang members. Trump's allies and administration officials have repeatedly sought to justify his detention over allegations of criminal activity and gang membership, which were raised only after he was summarily deported. Democrats and legal analysts argue the administration could return Abrego Garcia and then use that alleged evidence against him in normal immigration court removal hearings, but the government is refusing to do so. Instead, Justice Department lawyers and Trump administration officials have raised a 'state secrets' privilege to try to avoid answering questions about the government's relationship with El Salvador and conversations about the arrangements among officials. Abrego Garcia's lawyers argued that the government hasn't shown even 'the slightest effort' to fulfill court orders to retrieve him, and even cited Trump's interview last month with ABC News in which he said he could bring Abrego Garcia back but won't. On Friday, Xinis described the government's reasoning for withholding that information as 'take my word for it.' 'There's simply no details,' she said. 'This is basically 'take my word for it.''
Bloomberg
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Bloomberg
Abrego Garcia Judge Frustrated at US Failure to Answer Questions
A federal judge repeatedly expressed frustration Friday at the Trump administration's failure to answer her questions about what it is doing to facilitate the return of a Maryland resident wrongly deported to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador. US District Judge Paula Xinis held a hearing to press Justice Department lawyers on whether the government can invoke legal privileges to avoid answering questions about its efforts to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back to the US.
