DOJ says Kilmar Abrego Garcia will "never walk freely in the US"
WASHINGTON - The Department of Justice told a federal judge on Friday that Kilmar Abrego Garcia will "never walk freely in the U.S."
What we know
Abrego Garcia's lawyers said in a Maryland court on Friday that the Trump administration has produced thousands of pages of documents in this case – but his lawyers have only received 164 pages.
The Trump administration has invoked the state secrets privilege in the case, arguing that releasing details in open court or to a judge in private about any efforts to return Abrego Garcia would jeopardize national security.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said their explanation for invoking state secrets privilege was inadequate.
"There's simply no details," she said. "This is basically 'take my word for it.'"
Xinis said the administration needs to "do a little bit more to show its work" on why it believes the state secrets privilege applies.
"We think we've provided significant information," said Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn.
"Abrega Garcia's attorneys are trying to force the government to disclose information about not only his whereabouts, but also what the government is doing to facilitate his return, and the government resisting that on the grounds of state secrets of privilege," said international law professor Milena Sterio.
What they're saying
Trump attorneys told Xinis that Abrego Garcia "will never walk freely in the U.S."
"That sounds to me like an admission you will not take steps to facilitate the release or return of Abrego Garcia," Xinis said.
"That's about as clear as it can get."
What's next
Sterio said the next step from Xinis could be to hold government officials in contempt for failure to comply with the court order.
"That is a tool that court judges have at their disposal in normal litigation. But it is a rule that's rarely invoked against the government, because these government officials, they're not acting in their individual capacity, they are there representing the government," said Sterio.
The backstory
Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a 29-year-old El Salvadorian national. He fled his home country and came to the U.S. when he was 16. He has since lived in Maryland. He has three children and a wife, Jennifer Vasquez.
On March 12, Abrego Garcia was arrested in Baltimore after working a shift as a sheet metal apprentice and picking up his 5-year-old son, who has autism and other disabilities, from his grandmother's house, according to his lawyers.
He was then sent to the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT which activists say is rife with abuses. Three days later, he was deported.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement say they removed him to a Salvadoran prison over a 2019 accusation that he was in the MS-13 gang.
Abrego Garcia's ties to MS-13 were never proven and he has repeatedly denied being a gang member. His lawyers argue that the U.S. government "has never produced an iota of evidence" that he is affiliated with MS-13 or any other street gang.
His eventual expulsion to El Salvador violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded him from deportation to his native country. The judge ruled that Abrego Garcia had credible fears of being killed if he returned to El Salvador.
Abrego-Garcia has no criminal record in the U.S. outside of a few traffic violations. He had regularly checked in with immigration authorities.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials later admitted in a court filing that his deportation was due to an "administrative error" but the Trump administration has since maintained that there is nothing they can do to bring him back.
The Source
This story includes reporting from FOX News reporter Breanne Deppisch, an interview from international law professor Milena Sterio and previous FOX 5 DC reporting.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Will Harvard win its legal battle against the Trump administration?
The high court has given more leeway to presidential powers, particularly on national security issues the White House has cited to justify its latest impositions on Harvard. Moreover, the battle of attrition could wear Harvard down on the financial front: the legal battles will be costly, and in the meantime, Harvard may lose students and scholars 'I think the government wins every time,' said Brad Banias, an immigration lawyer based in Charleston, S.C., and former trial attorney for the Justice Department. 'If I'm an international student and I have a choice between Harvard, Yale, Brown . . . why would I pick the one in a battle with the government?' Advertisement Under fire on multiple fronts, Harvard has filed two lawsuits against the administration: one to reverse the elimination of billions in federal funding after the school refused to agree to a series of demands; the second over the White House's efforts to block international students from attending Harvard, citing potential threats to national security. Advertisement On the latter fight, Harvard so far has won temporary relief. On Thursday night, US District Judge Allison D. Burroughs issued a temporary restraining barring President Trump from denying visas to all students seeking entry to the country to attend Harvard. Last month, the judge temporarily halted the administration's effort to immediately revoke Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students. In its lawsuit filed in May and amended Thursday, Harvard accused the administration of 'a blatant violation' of its First Amendment and due process rights as part of an ongoing, retaliatory campaign against Harvard and other elite schools by Trump. Banias said he believes the administration's actions against Harvard were 'unlawful retaliation' and predicted the school will obtain a permanent injunction to allow international students to continue their studies while the underlying lawsuit proceeds in court. But, he said, it's 'a coin flip' as to which side wins if the case reaches the Supreme Court. On the one hand, the court historically is hesitant to restrict a president's power on national security issues. Yet in this case, Banias said, the Trump administration is unlikely to prove that all Harvard student visa holders pose a national security threat. During Trump's first term, in a 5-4 vote in 2018, the Supreme Court upheld his ban on travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries, a victory that came after two prior versions of the ban were struck down. The court found presidents have broad statutory authority to make national security judgments involving immigration. Laurence Tribe, a law professor emeritus at Harvard, said he's confident the university would prevail before the Supreme Court. Advertisement 'This has nothing to do with national security,' said Tribe, a liberal lawyer who's argued before the court dozens of times. 'The courts aren't stupid; they recognize a fig leaf when they see one.' He said Harvard has no choice but to fight Trump's actions. He noted Columbia University's more conciliatory approach: The Ivy League school in New York City agreed to change certain internal policies earlier this year in the face of federal funding cuts, but the Trump administration has continued to hammer the college. On the same day Trump announced the latest move targeting the student visas of Harvard enrollees, his administration sent a letter to the accreditation agency that oversees Columbia, writing that the school has violated civil rights laws and asking it to open an investigation. 'Columbia has seen the consequences of trying to deal with him,' Tribe said. 'We are not going to cave.' Daniel DiMartino, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, said that if Harvard wins a permanent injunction, the school will be able to continue to admit foreign students, and likely run out the clock until Trump is out of office or the administration's attention shifts. 'If there is an injunction, essentially Harvard wins. If there is not an injunction, Harvard really is in trouble,' DiMartino said. But Trump's goal, he said, is not to stop foreign students from coming to Harvard: it's to cause the university enough problems that it has to agree to changes demanded by the White House. Trump and other conservatives say Harvard has discriminated against white and Asian people in admissions, failed to do enough to tackle antisemitism, and rebuffed efforts to have ideological diversity in its professorial ranks. Advertisement 'If their goal was actually just to forbid foreign students from Harvard, they would have done it much more slowly and given them notice,' DiMartino said. 'The administration is trying to make an example out of Harvard to threaten other universities into cooperating and not misbehaving.' And in a broad sense, with the legal fees that come with protracted fights, DiMartino said, 'Harvard will lose no matter what. It just matters how much they lose.' Harvard also sued the Trump administration in April after it announced it was slashing about $3 billion in federal grants to the university. That case is pending. Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge who teaches courses at Harvard Law School, said she believes the Supreme Court will come down on Harvard's side and predicted the case will move quickly because of the ongoing harm to the school and its students. Citing the administration's demand the school turn over disciplinary records and other information on international students, Gertner said the White House 'essentially wanted Harvard to be a whistle-blower,' and is now retaliating even though that information is not legally required or provided by any other schools. Northeastern constitutional law professor Jeremy Paul said the government is able to punish institutions that break the law, as the Trump administration says Harvard has in its handling of antisemitic incidents. But first, he said, they have to prove in front of a judge the institution has done so. They can't just make an allegation and then act unilaterally, as the administration has done, he said. 'The executive branch is acting as though they're both the prosecutor and the judge,' Paul said. Advertisement Shelley Murphy can be reached at
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Karoline Leavitt rips Van Hollen, media for their portrayal of suspected human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called out Democrats and the media for defending illegal immigrant and suspected MS-13 member Kilmar Abrego Garcia Friday. Abrego Garcia, who was deported in March to an El Salvador mega prison, was returned to the U.S. Friday to answer federal charges for human smuggling and conspiracy. "The Justice Department's Grand Jury Indictment against Abrego Garcia proves the unhinged Democrat Party was wrong, and their stenographers in the Fake News Media were once again played like fools," Leavitt said in a statement to Fox News. "Abrego Garcia was never an innocent 'Maryland Man'– Abrego Garcia is an illegal alien terrorist, gang member, and human trafficker who has spent his entire life abusing innocent people, especially women and the most vulnerable," Leavitt added. She also called out Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., who traveled to El Salvador in April "to show solidarity" with Abrego Garcia. "Abrego Garcia will now return to the United States to answer for his crimes and meet the full force of American justice," Leavitt said. "The Democrat lawmakers, namely Democrat Senator Chris Van Hollen, and every single so-called 'journalist' who defended this illegal criminal abuser must immediately apologize to Garcia's victims. The Trump Administration will continue to hold criminals accountable to the fullest extent of the law." Abrego Garcia previously lived in Maryland before the administration deported him to the Central American country's mega prison. According to Abrego Garcia's indictment, he played a "significant role" in a human smuggling ring operating for nearly a decade, and Bondi described him as a full-time smuggler who made more than 100 trips, transporting women, children and MS-13 gang-affiliated persons throughout the United States. Fox News Digital obtained Tennessee Highway Patrol bodycam footage from a 2022 traffic stop where troopers pulled over Abrego Garcia for speeding. Inside his vehicle were eight other men, raising immediate suspicions. "He's hauling these people for money," one trooper said. Law enforcement found $1,400 in cash and flagged Abrego Garcia in the National Crime Information Center, which returned a gang/terrorism alert. ICE was called, but never responded. Despite Abrego Garcia's alleged illegal activity, various media outlets continued to refer to him as a "Maryland man" Friday, including the Washington Post and the New York Times. Fox News contributor Guy Benson shared a screenshot of their Breaking News alerts using the phrase. Axios and USA TODAY referred to him as a "Maryland man" or "Maryland father" on social media.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Van Hollen on Abrego Garcia's return to US: ‘A victory for the Constitution'
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) celebrated the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported and detained in El Salvador's CECOT prison, calling it 'a victory' for the rule of law. The Trump administration doubled down on the deportation, accusing Abrego Garcia, who illegally immigrated to the U.S. from El Salvador in 2011 but was later protected from removal to his home country, of having gang ties. His legal team has denied these allegations and urged for his return to the U.S. On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi, after months of fighting against Abrego Garcia's return in court, announced that he was transported back to U.S. soil to face criminal charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. 'This is a victory for due process. It's a victory for the Constitution. It should not have taken this long. I mean … the Trump administration dragged its feet for a very long time and ignored a 9 to 0 order from the Supreme Court,' Van Hollen said during a Friday appearance on MSNBC. 'But it's important that Abrego Garcia now come home and have his due process rights upheld in a court of law,' he added. The Maryland lawmaker visited Abrego Garcia while he was detained overseas to check on his well being and champion his release from El Salvadoran custody, which White House officials originally said would never happen. Van Hollen on Friday said that the court battle Abrego Garcia will now face should have been launched prior to his removal. 'If they're now going to take this case into the courts, as they should have, you know, from the beginning, before they just took him off the streets of Maryland and deposited him in a gulag in El Salvador, then that is — that is the due process that we've been fighting for,' he said. 'And, again, not just for his case, but for others. And — and I think that Americans understand that everybody deserves to have their rights, you know, respected. That's what the Constitution is for.' Abrego Garcia's attorney said on Friday that the criminal case is just another attempt to persecute his client. 'This shows that they were playing games with the court all along. Due process means the chance to defend yourself before you're punished, not after. This is an abuse of power, not justice,' attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg previously told The Hill in a statement. 'The government should put him on trial, yes—but in front of the same immigration judge who heard his case in 2019, which is the ordinary manner of doing things, 'to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,' as the Supreme Court ordered.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
