Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyers ask judge to delay release from jail over deportation fears
U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in Nashville is expected to rule soon on whether to free Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. If the Salvadoran national is released, U.S. officials have said he would be immediately detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation.
Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.
The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn't charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.'
The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.
U.S. officials have said they'll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn't El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he's a danger to the community.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he's not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns.
Holmes' ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government's plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw's decision imminent, Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to 'evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary.'
Earlier this month, U.S. officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That's where Abrego Garcia's American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion.
U.S. officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally around 2011 and because a U.S. immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador.
Following the immigration judge's decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his attorneys have said. But U.S. officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia's supervised release.
His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he's released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US Attorney General Pam Bondi has medical issue amid Epstein files scrutiny
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, citing a medical issue, abruptly canceled her appearance at an anti-trafficking event amid public outcry over her handling of the Epstein files and renewed scrutiny over President Donald Trump's relationship with the disgraced financier. Bondi was expected to speak at CPAC's Summit Against Human Trafficking on Wednesday before acting Assistant Attorney General Matthew R. Galeotti took to the stage to reveal she could no longer attend. 'I do have a note from the attorney general, from Attorney General Pam Bondi, that I wanted to share,' he told attendees before reading her statement. 'I'm sorry to miss all of my CPAC friends today,' Bondi's statement said. 'Unfortunately, I am recovering from a recently torn cornea, which is preventing me from being with you. I truly wish I was able to join you and support all of the work being done on this critical issue.' The announcement came some 90 minutes before The Wall Street Journal published a report, alleging Bondi informed Trump during a sit-down in back May that his name repeatedly appeared in the Epstein files. That means their meeting occurred just weeks before the Justice Department released a memo declaring that, after a lengthy review of all evidence available, there is 'no incriminating client list' or proof Epstein blackmailed prominent people as part of his alleged actions. It further noted that no more files related to the case — other than a video meant to prove that Epstein died by suicide — would be made public. The subsequent backlash was fierce, with critics calling for Bondi's head. Trump has, meanwhile, repeatedly come to his attorney general's defense while trying to quell his angry base. Many of them have pointed out the president's past vows to make public the Epstein files, and his recent hesitation to do so, has sparked questions about his involvement with the financier. Further fueling the fire, The Wall Street Journal also recently published a report on a collection of letters gifted to Epstein, one of them allegedly penned by Trump. The note, contained in a bound collection given to Epstein for his 50th birthday in 2003, apparently included a drawing of a naked woman with his signature written across her pelvis in a way that appeared to mimic pubic hair. 'A pal is a wonderful thing,' Trump wrote to Epstein, per the WSJ. 'Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.' Trump denied writing the birthday note and has since sued the Journal over its report. White House communications director Steven Cheung on Wednesday also denied the Journal's latest bombshell in a statement to Newsweek. 'The fact is that the President kicked him out of his (Mar-a-Lago) club for being a creep,' Cheung said in the statement. 'This is nothing more than a continuation of the fake news stories concocted by the Democrats and the liberal media, just like the Obama Russiagate scandal, which President Trump was right about.' _____
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why it matters who owns a newspaper
The House of Lords this week approved government legislation that will allow foreign states to hold up to a 15% stake in British newspaper publishers. This vote clears the way for the American investment company Redbird to take control of the troubled Telegraph newspaper group following two years of uncertainty. An integral element of that bid is a 15% stake by the sovereign investment fund IMI which is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the vice-president of the United Arab Emirates. The heated Lords debate raised fundamental questions about who should own newspapers, and the link between ownership and editorial content. On one side were those who argued that Britain's newspapers faced an 'existential threat' without outside investment. On the other were those who warned against the potential influence of a foreign power on one of the UK's longest standing publishers. Media mergers and acquisitions are often contentious. But given the parlous state of the newspaper industry, they are likely to become more frequent. A very different kind of newspaper deal was completed last December, when news website Tortoise Media bought The Observer. Tortoise, which was founded in 2018 by former Times editor and BBC director of news James Harding, startled analysts and journalists alike by taking over a newspaper first published in 1791. The deal prompted strong opposition from some Observer and Guardian journalists. But from a business perspective, the deal suited both sides. The Scott Trust, owners of the Observer since 1993, never seemed wholly committed to the Observer. (There was, for example, no dedicated Observer website). Tortoise, meanwhile, was keen to exploit the brand values of an established print product. It saw the Observer as a suitable vehicle for its approach of news analysis and explanation rather than breaking stories. The media world has also been fixated on the succession story of the Murdoch family and its implications for his UK newspapers. The Sun, News of the World (until its closure in 2011), the Times and Sunday Times have been the bedrock of Rupert Murdoch's economic and political power in the UK for decades. In December, he lost the battle to give his eldest son Lachlan exclusive control of his media empire. Speculation has grown as to whether any of Rupert's progeny will want to continue the family's print tradition after his death. His empire has suffered repeated financial and reputational hits since the phone hacking scandal. It is perfectly feasible that, once he goes, all the Murdoch press interests will be up for sale. These various battles beg the question: why does it matter who owns a newspaper? In short, it matters because ownership, to a large extent, determines content. Who owns the news? From the very beginning of printed news, proprietors have exercised control over their title's political direction and journalistic values. Prewar Britain saw Lord Beaverbrook famously exploiting his Express newspapers to campaign for free trade within the British empire. Meanwhile, fellow newspaper baron Lord Rothermere turned his Mail newspapers into propaganda sheets for Oswald Mosley's blackshirts, and cheerleaders for Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the 1930s. The Rothermere family's continued ownership of the Mail has guaranteed a consistent anti-immigration, anti-Europe rightwing worldview to the present day. How this consistent framing has been transmitted through the Mail's editors has been well documented by journalist Adrian Addison. Murdoch's UK newspaper empire has also pursued his personal free market, anti-EU political vision. He has used his papers to attack the publicly funded BBC and the regulator Ofcom. Murdoch has, however, been slightly more flexible in adjusting his papers' party political allegiance (guaranteeing a succession of prime ministerial genuflections from Margaret Thatcher through to Keir Starmer). At the other end of the political spectrum, the Scott Trust – owners of the Guardian – was conceived by the son of C.P. Scott as a vehicle for sustaining his father's liberal mission for the paper. It has a policy of no editorial interference, apart from continuing the paper's editorial policy on 'the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore'. Editors are therefore enjoined to focus on the kind of progressive news agenda championed by Scott. The trust model allows a level of freedom from traditional commercial oversight. Editors can pursue the Guardian's well-established liberal tradition without worrying about shareholders driven by short-term profit maximisation, or an individual owner with a specific ideological agenda. This partly explains the hostility of Observer journalists to the Tortoise takeover. Why it matters The Lords debate focused on the risks of foreign state investment in British newspapers. But all commercial ownership models – and all owners – have their problems. Whether it be greedy shareholders, a power-hungry narcissist, an ideologically-driven family or a foreign state seeking influence in the UK, commercial models all involve editorial compromises. One approach to the problems raised by commercial ownership is an insistence, through legislation, on a plurality of owners. But this is increasingly difficult in an industry whose traditional advertising-funded business model is under severe pressure. This context is precisely why the Telegraph's new owner was desperate to access IMI funds. Upmarket publications such as the Financial Times and the Times can monetise subscriptions, but paywalls discourage easy access and diminish journalistic reach. Subscriptions are also a much less attractive proposition for tabloids whose readers are less willing to pay. Another approach is to diversify ownership models. Non-profit and charitable publishers, such as OpenDemocracy or the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, can leverage donations and are less vulnerable to the whims of corporate owners or powerful individuals. But this model is much less developed in the UK than the US. I and colleagues have argued elsewhere that there are strong arguments for making charitable journalism easier. These models can enhance journalistic freedom, but they also come with potential downsides that need to be acknowledged. All these options presuppose, of course, that newspapers and their online sites still have sufficient relevance and reach for us to continue to worry about ownership at all – a topic for another article. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Steven Barnett is on the management and editorial boards of the British Journalism Review. He is a member of the British Broadcasting Challenge which campaigns for Public Service Broadcasting. He is on the Advisory Board of the Charitable Journalism Project which campaigns for public interest journalism and on the board of Hacked Off which campaigns for a free and accountable press.
CNN
13 minutes ago
- CNN
Man accused of attempting to assassinate Trump can represent himself at trial, judge says
Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow A man charged with trying to assassinate President Donald Trump last year in South Florida can represent himself during his trial, a federal judge ruled Thursday. US District Judge Aileen Cannon signed off on Ryan Routh's request to represent himself during his trial but said court-appointed attorneys need to remain as standby counsel. Earlier in the week, the federal public defenders had asked to be taken off the case, saying Routh had refused repeated attempts to meet with them. Routh, 59, is scheduled to stand trial in September, a year after prosecutors say a US Secret Service agent thwarted his attempt to shoot Trump as he played golf. Routh has pleaded not guilty to charges of attempting to assassinate a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer and several firearm violations. The judge told Routh earlier this month that she doesn't intend to delay the September 8 start date of his trial, even if she lets him represent himself. Routh, who has described the extent of his education as two years of college after earning his GED certificate, told Cannon that he understood and would be ready. In a June 29 letter to Cannon, Routh said that he and his attorneys were 'a million miles apart' and that they were refusing to answer his questions. He also suggested in the same letter that he could be used in a prisoner exchange with Iran, China, North Korea or Russia. 'I could die being of some use and save all this court mess, but no one acts; perhaps you have the power to trade me away,' Routh wrote. On Wednesday, the federal public defender's office filed a motion for termination of appointment of counsel, saying 'the attorney-client relationship is irreconcilably broken.' Attorneys said Routh refused to meet with them for a scheduled in-person meeting Tuesday morning at the federal detention center in Miami. They said Routh has refused six attempts to meet with their team. 'It is clear that Mr. Routh wishes to represent himself, and he is within his Constitutional rights to make such a demand,' the motion said. The US Supreme Court has held that criminal defendants have a right to represent themselves in court proceedings, as long as they can show a judge they are competent to waive their right to be defended by an attorney. Prosecutors have said Routh methodically plotted to kill Trump for weeks before aiming a rifle through the shrubbery as Trump played golf on September 15 at his West Palm Beach country club. A Secret Service agent spotted Routh before Trump came into view. Officials said Routh aimed his rifle at the agent, who opened fire, causing Routh to drop his weapon and flee without firing a shot. Law enforcement obtained help from a witness who prosecutors said informed officers that he saw a person fleeing. The witness was then flown in a police helicopter to a nearby interstate where Routh was arrested, and the witnesses confirmed it was the person he had seen, prosecutors have said. Routh has another, unrelated hearing in Cannon's courtroom scheduled for Friday on the admissibility of certain evidence and testimony that can be used for the trial. In addition to the federal charges, Routh also has pleaded not guilty to state charges of terrorism and attempted murder.
