Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia ask judge to keep him in jail over deportation concerns
Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia asked a federal judge in Tennessee on Friday to delay his release from jail because of 'contradictory statements' by President Donald Trump 's administration over whether or not he'll be deported upon release.
A federal judge in Nashville has been preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial on human smuggling charges. But she's been holding off over concerns that U.S. immigration officials would swiftly detain him and try to deport him again.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys are now asking the judge to continue to detain him following statements by Trump administration officials "because we cannot put any faith in any representation made on this issue by" the Justice Department.
'The irony of this request is not lost on anyone,' the attorneys wrote.
Abrego Garcia, a construction worker who had been living in Maryland, became a flashpoint over Trump's hard-line immigration policies when he was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador in March. Facing mounting pressure and a Supreme Court order, Trump's Republican administration returned him this month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.'
Justice Department spokesman Chad Gilmartin told The Associated Press on Thursday that the department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him, stating that Abrego Garcia 'has been charged with horrific crimes, including trafficking children, and will not walk free in our country again.'
Hours earlier, Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn told a federal judge in Maryland that the U.S. government plans to deport Abrego Garcia to a 'third country' that isn't El Salvador. Guynn said there was no timeline for the deportation plans.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote in their filing on Friday that Guynn's statements were the 'first time the government has represented, to anyone, that it intended not to deport Mr. Abrego back to El Salvador following a trial on these charges, but to deport him to a third country immediately.'
The filing by Abrego Garcia's lawyers also cited a post on X on Thursday from White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson: 'Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States to face trial for the egregious charges against him," Jackson stated. "He will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he's committed.'
Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote Friday the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back 'only to convict him in the court of public opinion.'
'In a just world, he would not seek to prolong his detention further,' his attorneys wrote. 'And yet the government — a government that has, at all levels, told the American people that it is bringing Mr. Abrego back home to the United States to face 'American justice' — apparently has little interest in actually bringing this case to trial.'
Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken expulsion to a notorious prison in El Salvador.
Those charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers without luggage.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville wrote in a ruling Sunday that federal prosecutors failed to show that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community.
During a court hearing Wednesday, Holmes set specific conditions for Abrego Garcia's release that included him living with his brother, a U.S. citizen, in Maryland. But she held off on releasing him over concerns that prosecutors can't prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting him.
Holmes ordered Abrego Garcia's lawyers and prosecutors to file briefs on the matter Thursday and Friday respectively.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Judge approves $7m settlement for men suing bar over ‘ladies' night' admission fee
A judge has given preliminary approval of a $7 million settlement in a lawsuit alleging a 'ladies' night' event at a San Diego bar discriminated against men and nonbinary people. The owners of the Omnia Nightclub, which closed in 2020 in the city's lively Gaslamp Quarter, were sued in 2020 after the plaintiffs claimed the themed night violated California's civil rights law. The plaintiffs alleged that they, along with other men and nonbinary people, were made to pay full price on entry, while women were let in for free or at discounted rates at the 'ladies' night' event. The men also alleged that they were frisked by security before entering the club but women were not. The claims in the class action date back to 2015. San Diego Superior Court Judge Matthew Braner gave preliminary approval to the settlement in May and a final fairness hearing is scheduled for August 29. The agreement does not include an admission of any wrongdoing by the defendants. California 's anti-discrimination statute, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, is at the heart of the case. The law prohibits businesses, including bars and nightclubs, from discriminating against customers based on sex, race, religion, gender identity and age. Alex Maystrenko and Steve Frye, the two named plaintiffs in the suit, will each receive $25,000 for their roles as the class representatives. There could be thousands of men who are eligible for a slice of the settlement, which, depending on the final number of claimants, could be between $245 and $4,000 each. Up to 40 percent of the settlement will likely go toward legal costs. Courts in California have previously ruled that gender-based promotions at venues violate the Unruh Act. A family-run San Francisco restaurant was forced to shut down at the end of last year because of a 'ladies' night' discrimination lawsuit. Alfred Rava, a San Diego-based attorney, has brought hundreds of other 'ladies' night' suits. Rava is representing two men who decided not to join the other members of the 2020 class action. 'I and my clients hardily disapprove of businesses treating patrons or consumers differently based solely on their sex,' Rava said.
The Independent
23 minutes ago
- The Independent
Marjorie Taylor Greene offers rare GOP praise of Mamdani's campaign: ‘He talked directly to the people'
MAGA firebrand Marjorie Taylor Greene has offered some rare Republican praise for the New York mayoral primary campaign of Democrat Zohran Mamdani. The Georgia congresswoman initially reacted to the presumed victory of the three-term New York State assemblyman, a Muslim, with an edited image of the Statue of Liberty cloaked in a burqa. She now calls his campaign 'unique and smart.' In an appearance on Steve Bannon 's podcast War Room on Real America's Voice, Green attributed Mamdani's apparent win over the frontrunner, former Governor Andrew Cuomo, to having 'talked directly to the people.' She said Mamdani 'was focused on their issues, focused on their problems, and talking to the people about his solutions.' Greene added: 'I think it's extremely important that we get a hard focus on solving our problems, and that's what people really want. And you know that guy that won … the Democrat primary in the [New York] mayor's race. I've watched quite a few of his videos, and he did something pretty unique and very smart, even though I don't agree with anything he says.' She continued: 'He really ran a campaign where he talked directly to the people. He was focused on their issues, focused on their problems, and talking to the people about his solutions, even though his solutions are insane and they're socialist, probably communist, but … he was talking directly to the people.' 'When we are not talking to the people and not working on the people's problems, we lose the people, and the people will turn elsewhere,' she concluded. While the Georgia lawmaker is no fan of Mamdani, acknowledging his abilities on the campaign trail is of note amidst the torrent of Islamophobic bigotry otherwise directed at the man who is likely to become the next mayor of New York. The New York Young Republican Club reacted to the primary results with a 'call to action' on X. 'The radical Zohran Mamdani cannot be allowed to destroy our beloved city of New York,' the group wrote. The group urged the president to invoke the Red Scare-era Communist Control Act to yank Mamdani's citizenship and 'promptly deport him.' The club called on White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Trump's border czar, Tom Homan, to take action. Miller claimed New York City is the 'clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration.' 'The entire Democrat party is lining up behind the diehard socialist who wants to end all immigration enforcement and abolish the prison system entirely,' he added. Republican Rep. Andy Ogles of Tennessee referred to Mamdani as 'little Muhammad' and said he's 'an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York.' 'He needs to be DEPORTED. Which is why I am calling for him to be subject to denaturalization proceedings,' he added. President Donald Trump reacted to Mamdani's win on Truth Social: 'Zohran Mamdani, a 100% Communist Lunatic, has just won the Dem Primary, and is on his way to becoming Mayor. We've had Radical Lefties before, but this is getting a little ridiculous.' He added: 'He looks TERRIBLE, his voice is grating, he's not very smart, he's got AOC+3, Dummies ALL, backing him, and even our Great Palestinian Senator, Cryin' Chuck Schumer, is groveling over him. Yes, this is a big moment in the History of our Country!' Mamdani, who could become the city's first Muslim and Indian-American mayor, won one of the first major Democratic primaries since the start of Trump's second stint in the White House. His platform has largely focused on a growing affordability crisis, with plans for universal childcare, free buses, and a freeze on rent increases in rent-controlled units.
The Independent
28 minutes ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court justices brawl over birthright ruling as Amy Coney Barrett rips Ketanji Brown Jackson for dissent
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson 's passionate dissent in the birthright citizenship case appeared to strike a nerve with conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who used three pages of the majority opinion to chide her liberal colleague's legal argument. On Friday, the court released its decision in a case brought by President Donald Trump seeking to expand his executive authority by limiting the power of federal judges. Barrett, joined by the five conservative justices, authored the court's main opinion agreeing to narrow judges' ability to issue nationwide blocks on Trump's executive orders. Jackson authored a concurring dissent, accusing the majority of hastening 'the downfall of our governmental institutions.' The liberal justice of the court accused the majority of being 'so caught up in minutiae of the Government's self-serving, finger-pointing arguments that it misses the plot.' Barrett seemingly did not care for Jackson's sharp admonishment of the court and spent several pages dismissing Jackson's argument as a 'startling line of attack' with no legal precedent and 'many problems.' 'The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,' Barrett wrote, referring to Justice Sonia Sotomayor's main dissenting opinion. 'Justice Jackson, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever,' Barrett added. For multiple paragraphs, Barrett brushed off her colleague's fiery dissent as illogical. 'We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself,' Barrett wrote, before spending another page discussing Jackson's dissent. Barrett, a conservative who was appointed by Trump in 2020, has occasionally toed the line between the conservative wing and the liberal wing of the court, earning ire from Trump supporters. But her scathing takedown of Jackson's dissent was an eye-opening reminder of where her loyalty lies. 'Justice Jackson would do well to heed her own admonition: '[E]veryone, from the President on down, is bound by law.'' Jackson, a liberal appointed by former president Joe Biden in 2022, expressed intense opposition to the court's decision on Friday, believing it to be 'destructive,' 'perverse,' and 'wrong.' Jackson claimed that the decision would embolden the executive to act more as a monarchy than a democracy. 'A Martian arriving here from another planet would see these circumstances and surely wonder: 'what good is the Constitution, then?'' Jackson said in her dissent. It's not uncommon for justices to display their passion for a certain issue in opinions and dissents. It's become standard to find justices sharply disagreeing with one another in written decisions. But Barrett's relentless attack and Jackson's heated dissent was even surprising to some people online. Republican Representative Dan Crenshaw wrote 'Wow' in response to Barrett's opinion, saying she 'slapped down' Jackson's credibility. Former vice president Mike Pence called Barrett's rebuke 'brilliant.' 'Justice Barrett's brutal takedown of the dissent authored by Justice Jackson is something one wouldn't have predicted from oral arguments,' Fox News host Laura Ingraham said.
