‘Bring Kilmar home': Protesters gathered outside Nashville federal court for Kilmar Abrego Garcia
While the hearing was taking place inside, protesters gathered outside the Fred D. Thompson Federal Building and Courthouse — holding signs, chanting and delivering emotional speeches to the crowd. They demanded three things: due process for Abrego Garcia, for the abolition of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and an end to what they called the weaponization of the U.S. Government.
Wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia spoke before hearing
'The way this whole thing has been handled has been illegal and racist,' Rebecca Bornac, a resident in Nashville, said. 'I wanted Kilmar to know we support him, and we support his right to a fair trial.'
Abrego Garcia was deported to an El Salvador prison in March. He's been accused of conspiring to bring undocumented immigrants to the U.S. from 2016 to 2025.
'As a citizen of the United States, I am deeply sorry and ashamed for the treatment that my country has visited upon Mr. Abrego Garcia, which violates our core principles as a people and his rights on U.S. soil,' Ian Montgomery, Organizer with United Volunteers and Organizers for Tennessee expressed.
Speeches continued for almost three hours, and some participants went into the courtroom to listen in to the arraignment firsthand.
'He was in an orange jumpsuit, and everything was peaceful and fine,' Margaret Pitts, a resident in Nashville, explained. 'To be a part of it and witness it felt really important.'
Kilmar Abrego Garcia pleads not guilty in Nashville courtroom on federal charges
The participants told News 2 that they would never stop fighting for Abrego's freedom.
'We are people, Nashvillians, Tennesseans, standing up for what is right, standing up for our constitution for our neighbors and due process,' a protester expressed.
The protest wrapped up around 11:30 a.m. due to inclement weather, but event organizers told News 2 they will be back out again on Saturday for 'No Kings' at Bicentennial Capital Mall State Park.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
a day ago
- Axios
Tennessee immigrant group sues over raid records
A Tennessee nonprofit is suing to get access to records tied to an immigration crackdown that roiled Nashville. Why it matters: Authorities arrested about 200 people during an immigration sweep in May. They've released some details but have not provided records for all of the arrests. Catch up quick: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security agents worked with the Tennessee Highway Patrol to conduct scores of traffic stops in south Nashville, which is home to many Hispanic residents. Metro police officers were not involved. Zoom in: The Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC) requested public records on the operation. "Although the Tennessee Highway Patrol produced some records, it also implausibly denied the existence of others, redacted some groundlessly, and delayed its production of video footage to the point of denial," the TIRRC said in a statement. The group filed a complaint Thursday in Davidson County Chancery Court saying the THP was violating public records laws. What she's saying:"The Tennessee Public Records Act ensures that ordinary Tennesseans can access information about how their government works and how state authority is being exercised in their name," TIRRC executive director Lisa Sherman Luna said in the statement.
Indianapolis Star
a day ago
- Indianapolis Star
What are President Trump's approval ratings? See what Indiana thinks of his performance
President Donald Trump's approval ratings nationally are in the red, but in about half of the states, including Indiana, more people approve than disapprove of his job performance. While Trump's approval rating nationally remains historically low, a look at state-by-state survey results show a more complicated picture. Here is what we know: Trump's approval rating is above water in 27 states, according to an Aug. 12 update from Morning Consult, which gathers polls over the course of three months to get a look at state-level data among registered voters. The number of states who approve of Trump is unchanged from July's update. Morning Consult found that Trump is most popular in Wyoming, where 66% of voters approve of his job performance, and least popular in Vermont, where 64% disapprove. His approval is net negative in two states with gubernatorial races this fall: New Jersey and Virginia, according to Morning Consult. In Texas, 53% of voters approve of Trump's performance while 44% disapprove. In California, where Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened to counter changes in Texas' redistricting plan, 41% approve of Trump's job peformance while 56% disapprove. California is Trump's seventh worst rating among the states, according to Morning Consult. According to Morning Consult, 51% of Hoosiers approve of Trump while 45% disapprove. Despite recent "No Kings" and "Good Trouble" protests, Indiana is one of the 27 states where Trump's approval ratings are more positive than not. Story continues after photo gallery. RealClearPolitics Poll Average shows Trump's approval rating dipping throughout the first few weeks of July before rising toward the end of the month. Aggregated polls by the New York Times show a similar trend. As of Jan. 27, Trump had a +6.2 percentage point approval rating, but as of March 13, that flipped to slightly negative, the RealClearPolitics graphics show. His approval rating fell lowest on April 29 around Trump's 100-day mark to 7.2 percentage points. It came close to that low again on July 22 and 23 at -7.1 percentage points, as the controversy over Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted pedophile, carried into its third week. As of Aug. 12 Trump's average approval rating margin, according to RealClearPolitics, is -5.4 percentage points. The approval margin according to the New York Times aggregator on Aug. 12 is -8 percentage points. A historical analysis by Gallup shows Trump's approval ratings in July of his first years in office — both as the 45th and 47th presidents — are lower than those of any other modern president at the same time in their administrations. In a Gallup poll conducted from July 7-21, 37% approved of Trump's job performance. Here's how that compares to other presidents in July of their first year of their term, according to Gallup:
CNN
3 days ago
- CNN
Judge is skeptical of Justice Department's lawsuit against 15 federal judges as Trump tries to limit power of judiciary
Donald Trump Trump legal cases Federal agencies ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal judge was skeptical at a hearing Wednesday of the Justice Department's effort to sue all of Maryland's federal court judges in a case testing the Trump administration's effort to limit the power of the judiciary. The case raises major questions about ongoing power struggles between the Trump administration and the federal courts, specifically as judges have tried to curtail due process violations in President Donald Trump's aggressive approach to immigration. The Maryland court has become one of the central playing fields for immigration clashes between the administration and judges, after lawsuits, including one from Kilmar Abrego-Garcia, challenged how the administration was removing detainees with little to no due process. 'I don't have a very good poker face,' US District Judge Thomas Cullen said during a major hearing in the case, where the Trump administration is challenging the ability of all 15 judges in Maryland's federal district court from following a court rule that temporarily bars the administration from carrying out fast-moving deportations of immigrants. 'I have some skepticism.' Cullen, a 2020 Trump appointee to the federal bench in Virginia who was also a US Attorney in the first Trump administration, was brought in to oversee the immigration case at the federal court in Baltimore since all of Maryland's judges are recused from the matter. The judge spent nearly two hours on Wednesday criticizing the administration's decision to file the lawsuit and questioning whether it could lead to other executive branch litigation against federal benches all the way up to the Supreme Court. He said he would rule by Labor Day. 'You have to concede that if they can do this at the district court level, they could do this at the Circuit or potentially the Supreme Court,' Cullen said at one point, appearing sympathetic to the judges' arguments. The judges hired well-known conservative lawyer and George W. Bush-era Solicitor General Paul Clement to defend them in the case and argue the case should be thrown out. 'The logic of the executive branch suit here would extend fully in a suit against the 4th Circuit,' Clement said, referring to the Richmond-based federal appeals court that oversees cases arising from several mid-Atlantic states, including Maryland. In arguing that the case should be thrown out, said that his clients enjoy 'judicial immunity' from lawsuits like this one and that the administration had no cause of action – or claim – through which they could seek to block the Maryland court's rule. 'There really is no precursor for this suit,' Clement said. 'There's just nothing like this kind of injunction against the judicial branch.' The Justice Department sued all federal judges on the lower-level District Court of Maryland in late June, after the court's chief judge put in place a rule that would automatically and temporarily block the Trump administration from removing an immigration detainee from the US if the detainee had gone to court to challenge their removal. The rule was meant to keep the status quo, so a court could intervene within two business days before a detainee would be moved away. The order, from Chief Judge George Russell, was an unusual approach to detainees' cases, though not unheard of in court, coming after a high-profile dispute in the Maryland federal court where the Trump administration mistakenly sent the Abrego Garcia, to a Salvadoran prison without due process and then said it couldn't bring him back to the US. The Justice Department's approach to sue the judges, however, is equally unusual, and judges nationwide have told CNN they consider it to be an extreme approach. Cullen acknowledged that reality on Wednesday after a Justice Department attorney tried to point to other suits brought in the past by executive branch officials against members of the federal judiciary. Those lawsuits include one filed in the 1990s by then-US Attorney Sheldon Whitehouse against Rhode Island's federal court. But those suits, Cullen said, were 'considerably more modest' than the one brought by the Justice Department in June. 'This is taking it up about six notches, isn't it?' he added. The DOJ attorney, Elizabeth Hedges, also tried to tamp down concerns that a raft of litigation could result from a favorable ruling. 'These sorts of suits have been brought in the past and we have not seen a proliferation of litigation,' she said. 'This is not opening the floodgates.' 'We can take your word on that – this is a one-off?' Cullen shot back. None of the 15 Maryland judges who are named defendants in the lawsuit were present in the courtroom for Wednesday's hearing, a spokesman for the court told CNN. Eleven former federal judges from various circuits, including some appointed by Republican presidents, warned in a friend-of-the-court brief in the case that if the Trump administration is allowed to carry its approach through 'to its logical conclusion,' it would 'run roughshod over any effort by the judiciary to preserve its jurisdiction that frustrates the Executive's prerogatives. … That result would be devastating to the efficacy of the Nation's courts.' Apart from the implications of the lawsuit, Cullen indicated he was concerned by the fact that the Justice Department decided to mount a wholesale challenge to the Maryland court instead of taking issue with court orders around detainee removals on a case-by-case basis. 'Why not file an interlocutory appeal as applied in any one of these (immigration) cases' and take it up to the Supreme Court when necessary, he said. The judge pointed to the fact the high court has acted quickly on cases appealed to it on its emergency docket. Such an approach, he said, 'would be more expeditious than the two months we have spent on this.'
