Government files appeal after Kilmar Abrego Garcia ordered released by federal judge
The government on Sunday appealed a federal judge's order to release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia pending trial on human smuggling charges, another chapter in the saga of the Maryland father who had been erroneously deported to El Salvador.
The Trump administration admitted having mistakenly deported Abrego Garcia in March, and the Supreme Court ordered it to facilitate his return.
Upon his return this month, though, Abrego Garcia was hit with federal charges of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal immigrants for financial gain and unlawful transportation of illegal immigrants for monetary gain. He pleaded not guilty.
'Abrego, like every person arrested on federal criminal charges, is entitled to a full and fair determination of whether he must remain in federal custody pending trial,' U.S. Magistrate Barbara D. Holmes of the Middle District of Tennessee wrote in her opinion Sunday. 'The Court will give Abrego the due process that he is guaranteed.'
The government quickly filed a request to stay the order and keep Abrego Garcia in custody, a filing that made it clear it would again subject him to deportation proceedings.
The government argued that a stay, or pause, would allow the court 'to conduct meaningful review' of custody ahead of the judge's ruling on a separate court filing.
'He will remain in custody pending deportation and Judge Holmes' release order would not immediately release him to the community under any circumstance,' Justice Department lawyers said in request for a stay Sunday.
In concluding Abrego Garcia should be released pending trial, with certain conditions, Holmes faulted the government for its language surrounding the case and indicated he has been so far denied ordinary due process that might come to any defendant.
She noted that government lawyers have used the terms "human smuggling" and "human trafficking" interchangeably, though the former refers to helping someone willfully enter a country, while the latter refers to bringing someone to a country against their will.
She also noted that the government accused Abrego Garcia of being "involved" in transporting a minor as part of the alleged smuggling — without solid and specific evidence of such.
Holmes set a hearing for Wednesday to discuss terms of Abrego Garcia's release and ordered federal authorities to produce him for the event.
She held out little hope that Abrego Garcia would actually be free, however, noting that immigration authorities were likely to detain him upon release because he is alleged to be in the United States without permission.
"Either Abrego will remain in the custody of the Attorney General or her designee pending trial if detained under the Bail Reform Act or he will likely remain in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ('ICE') custody subject to anticipated removal proceedings that are outside the jurisdiction of this Court," she wrote in her decision.
"That suggests the Court's determination of the detention issues is little more than an academic exercise," Holmes said.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
26 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Illinois is wooing foreign tourists, despite a hostile White House and a blue-red divide
Chicago hosted an influential travel group at McCormick Place last week, putting on a show to win international tourist and convention business. From a blowout opening night at the Field Museum to tours of neighborhoods, sports venues and dining hotspots, the program was impressive. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker were on hand to give friendly, uncontroversial welcomes. But like most of the attendees, they danced around the elephant in the room. When it comes to attracting foreign visitors to the U.S., there's no ignoring President Donald J. Trump. The conference opened Sunday as a 'No Kings' rally attracted thousands of protesters downtown, a military parade rolled through Washington, D.C., and U.S. troops patrolled Los Angeles in a Trump-ordered show of force. While the conference-goers were heading out on Monday for an evening meant to showcase the Magnificent Mile, Trump was urging U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to stage more armed roundups of unauthorized migrants in Chicago, New York and L.A. As the tour operators and travel writers sampled Mr. Beef sandwiches and Pequod's pizzas, the administration proposed a ban on travel from up to 36 more countries, on top of 19 travel bans already in effect. Trump's tariffs have weakened the dollar, which makes foreign travel to the U.S. more affordable. But no one should fool themselves about a trade war being good for business — tourism included. No amount of catchy marketing can easily overcome America's hostility to the rest of the planet since Trump took office in January. Foreign visitors have reason to worry they could be detained at customs, their devices searched, their visas canceled. So how does the U.S. Travel Association cope with an administration throwing up so many roadblocks at many of the same countries it's trying to woo? Geoff Freeman, chief executive of the travel group, acknowledged the 'growing perception' that America doesn't want foreign visitors. 'That perception is costing us,' he told conference-goers. 'The world is watching.' In an interview, Freeman said the administration, including Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy, finally is getting the message being more welcoming to visitors, especially with the FIFA World Cup coming to 11 U.S. cities next year and L.A. hosting the Summer Olympics in 2028. Yet that's the same Secretary Duffy who just threatened to withhold federal transportation funding from cities such as Chicago where the most vehement anti-ICE protests take place. The us-vs.-them divide that characterizes the administration's approach to blue states didn't appear to be spilling over to the travel officials exhibiting at the conference. 'Travel shouldn't be a debate on blue or red,' noted Cole Irwin, global travel and trade director for deep-red South Dakota. 'We don't want to turn anyone away.' And travelers open to new experiences aren't concerned with a state's politics, according to Jane Powell, executive director of a tourism group in South Carolina. The 'whole blue state, red state thing' is more of an issue in the media than among travelers she interacts with, Powell said. Dan Marengo of California's Visit Berkeley acknowledged what he considers 'crazy rhetoric coming out of Washington,' but believes 'California is too powerful a destination for people to stay away.' Here's hoping. Illinois tourism officials are praying the Trump chill doesn't last. The Choose Chicago tourism group has made something of a post-pandemic comeback, hiring a new chief executive, Kristen Reynolds, and launching a new ad blitz. The $4 million ad campaign features the slogan, 'Never Done. Never Outdone,' which we doubt will become a viral sensation like, 'I Love New York' or 'Keep Austin Weird.' But it represents a vast improvement over the baffling 'Chicago Not in Chicago' tourism campaign that bombed in 2022. We'll be watching the numbers. Here's what we know about tourism growth in our city last year. Chicago welcomed an estimated 55.3 million visitors in 2024, marking a 6.5% increase from the previous year, according to a 2025 Choose Chicago report. Preliminary data shows that international visitation exceeded 2 million for the first time since 2019 — a year-over-year jump of more than 10%. Tourism generated an estimated $20.6 billion in total economic impact. On the conventions and events front, 1,891 meetings and conventions booked by Choose Chicago were held in 2024, contributing more than $3 billion to the local economy. The city and state have put their best foot forward, and now it's up to foreign visitors to decide whether they want to venture into a country that has become, to many, Trump Country. Here's hoping Chicago's rekindled tourism efforts are not only 'Never Outdone,' but also never 'done in' by whatever comes next from Washington.
Newsweek
39 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Presidential Pardons Are a Dirty Business
In one of the most famous scenes of The Godfather, Don Corleone rejects a lucrative business opportunity because it involved narcotics. "Drugs," the Don explained, "are a dirty business." That quote came to mind when news broke about President Donald Trump's recent pardon of Paul Walczak. When I learned about Walczak—and the circumstances surrounding the president's exercise of his constitutional authority to liberate him—I instantly thought, "Pardons are a dirty business." According to the Justice Department, Walczak pled guilty in November 2024 to cheating on his taxes for years, amounting to nearly $11 million in stolen taxes. Beyond the large amount that he stole, the details of Walczak's fraud are even more sordid. President Donald Trump takes questions after signing a series of bills related to California's vehicle emissions standards during an event in the East Room of the White House on June 12, 2025, in Washington, D.C. President Donald Trump takes questions after signing a series of bills related to California's vehicle emissions standards during an event in the East Room of the White House on June 12, 2025, in Washington, has been an inveterate tax scofflaw since at least 2011. In short, he ran a web of health care companies, withheld $7.5 million of his employees' wages, and kept the money. He also pocketed $3.8 million of Social Security and Medicare taxes. He did all of this from 2016-2019, after he had already been penalized by the IRS for doing the exact same thing. To add insult to injury, Walczak also failed to pay his personal taxes for 2019 and 2020, even though he received a salary of $360,000 and transfers of nearly half a million dollars. To make matters worse, Walczak used those ill-gotten millions to spend lavishly on himself, including private flights and a yacht that cost over $2 million. "While Walczak was withholding taxes from the pay of his employees under the pretext of paying these funds to the IRS," the Justice Department stated in a press release, "he used over $1 million from his businesses' bank accounts to purchase a yacht, transferred hundreds of thousands of dollars to his personal bank accounts, and used the business accounts for personal purchases at retailers such as Bergdorf Goodman, Cartier, and Saks." Notably, the prosecutor reportedly told the court that Walczak did not act out of desperation—he was already rich. Rather, he took $10 million in taxes from the government "simply because he wasn't getting rich enough." Why would President Trump decide to use his special constitutional authority to liberate Walczak before he paid any penalty whatsoever? Now we know, thanks to reporting from The New York Times. Walczak's mother is reportedly a longtime Republican donor and Trump supporter, who just happened to attend a $1 million-per-person Trump fundraiser that "promised face-to-face access to Mr. Trump at his private Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla." Less than three weeks later, and shortly before Walczak was due to go to prison for his 18-month sentence, the president pardoned him. Despite his years-long abuse of the tax system, which he admitted, Walczak will get off scot-free. This should go down as another disgraceful star in the Constellation of Dirty Presidential Pardons, which features Barack Obama's pardon of Chelsea Manning, Bill Clinton's pardon of his half-brother Roger Clinton, and of course Joe Biden's unconscionable pardon of his son Hunter. The most analogous member of the Dirty Pardon Hall of Shame is Clinton's waiver of fugitive financier Marc Rich. Rich was indicted in 1983 for evading more than $48 million in taxes and charged with 51 counts of tax fraud, mail fraud, racketeering, as well as running illegal oil deals with Iran during a trade embargo. After his indictment, he fled the United States and remained a fugitive until Clinton pardoned him just hours before the president left the White House in 2001. The Rich pardon prompted a huge backlash because Rich's ex-wife had donated more than $1.3 million to Democratic party, including $70,000 to Hillary Clinton's Senate campaign, along with $450,000 to Clinton's presidential library. Within days, Republicans on Capitol Hill opened an investigation. Even Democratic stalwarts like Pat Leahy, Paul Wellstone, and Barney Frank roundly criticized President Clinton for the Rich pardon. The Walczak pardon, with its financial quid-pro-quo overtones, is on par with the Rich debacle. This is the stuff of banana republics, not great ones. Alexander Hamilton defended the president's broad pardon authority in the Constitution, writing in Federalist No. 74: "Humanity and good policy conspire to dictate, that the benign prerogative of pardoning should be as little as possible fettered or embarrassed. The criminal code of every country partakes so much of necessary severity, that without an easy access to exceptions in favor of unfortunate guilt, justice would wear a countenance too sanguinary and cruel." The key words there are "unfortunate guilt," which implies some sort of miscarriage of justice. But neither the Rich nor Walczak cases feature "unfortunate guilt." To the contrary, they reflect the sleazy reality of modern-day politics, one befitting a mob boss, not U.S presidents. Pardons are a dirty business. Mark Lee Greenblatt is an expert on government ethics and compliance, an attorney, and author. Most recently, he served as inspector general for the U.S. Department of the Interior. From 2019 to 2025, Mr. Greenblatt led a team of nearly 300 investigators, auditors, and attorneys responsible for oversight of more than 70,000 agency employees. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Supreme Court prepares to release major opinions on birthright citizenship, LGBTQ books, porn sites
From digging into President Donald Trump's battle with the courts to deciding whether people can be required to identify themselves before viewing porn online, the Supreme Court in the coming days will deliver its most dramatic decisions of the year. With most of its pending rulings complete, the justices are now working toward issuing the final flurry of opinions that could have profound implications for the Trump administration, the First Amendment and millions of American people. Already, the conservative Supreme Court has allowed states to ban transgender care for minors — a blockbuster decision that could have far-reaching consequences — sided with the Food and Drug Administration's denial of vaping products and upheld Biden-era federal regulations that will make it easier to track 'ghost guns.' Here are some of the most important outstanding cases: The first argued appeal involving Trump's second term has quickly emerged as the most significant case the justices will decide in the coming days. The Justice Department claims that three lower courts vastly overstepped their authority by imposing nationwide injunctions that blocked the president from enforcing his order limiting birthright citizenship. Whatever the justices say about the power of courts to halt a president's executive order on a nationwide basis could have an impact beyond birthright citizenship. Trump has, for months, vociferously complained about courts pausing dozens of his policies with nationwide injunctions. While the question is important on its own — it could shift the balance of power between the judicial and executive branches — the case was supercharged by the policy at issue: Whether a president can sign an executive order that upends more than a century of understanding, the plain text of the 14th Amendment and multiple Supreme Court precedents pointing to the idea that people born in the US are US citizens. During the May 15 arguments, conservative and liberal justices seemed apprehensive to let the policy take effect. The high court is also set to decide whether a school district in suburban Washington, DC, burdened the religious rights of parents by declining to allow them to opt their elementary-school children out of reading LGBTQ books in the classroom. As part of its English curriculum, Montgomery County Public Schools approved a handful of books in 2022 at issue. One, 'Prince & Knight,' tells the story of a prince who does not want to marry any of the princesses in his realm. After teaming up with a knight to slay a dragon, the two fall in love, 'filling the king and queen with joy,' according to the school's summary. The parents said the reading of the books violated their religious beliefs. The case arrived at the Supreme Court at a moment when parents and public school districts have been engaged in a tense struggle over how much sway families should have over instruction. The Supreme Court's conservative majority signaled during arguments in late April that it would side with the parents in the case, continuing the court's yearslong push to expand religious rights. The court is juggling several major cases challenging the power of federal agencies. One of those deals with the creation of a task force that recommends which preventive health care services must be covered at no cost under Obamacare. Though the case deals with technical questions about who should appoint the members of a board that makes those recommendations, the decision could affect the ability of Americans to access cost-free services under the Affordable Care Act such as certain cancer screenings and PrEP drugs that help prevent HIV infections. During arguments in late April, the court signaled it may uphold the task force. The court also seemed skeptical of a conservative challenge to the Universal Service Fund, which Congress created in 1996 to pay for programs that expand broadband and phone service in rural and low-income communities. Phone companies contribute billions to that fund, a cost that is passed on to consumers. A conservative group challenged the fund as an unconstitutional 'delegation' of the power of Congress to levy taxes. If the court upholds the structure of the programs' funding, that would represent a departure from its trend in recent years of limiting the power of agencies to act without explicit approval from Congress. For years, the Supreme Court has considered whether congressional districts redrawn every decade violate the rights of Black voters under the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act. This year, the justices are being asked by a group of White voters whether Louisiana went so far in adding a second Black-majority district that it violated the 14th Amendment. The years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's districts raises a fundamental question about how much state lawmakers may think about race when drawing congressional maps. The answer may have implications far beyond the Bayou State, particularly if a majority of the court believes it is time to move beyond policies intended to protect minority voters that were conceived during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Arguments in the case, which took place in March, were mixed. A ruling against Louisiana would likely jeopardize the state's second Black and Democratic-leaning congressional district, currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat. And any change to Fields' territory could affect the boundaries of districts held by House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise. The justices will also decide a fight that erupted in 2018 when South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster yanked Medicaid funding for the state's two Planned Parenthood clinics. Technically, the legal dispute isn't about abortion — federal and state law already bar Medicaid from paying for that procedure — but a win for South Carolina could represent a financial blow to an entity that provides access to abortion in many parts of the country. McMaster, a Republican, argued the payments were a taxpayer subsidy for abortion. McMaster's order had the effect of also blocking patients from receiving other services at Planned Parenthood. A patient named Julie Edwards, who has diabetes, and Planned Parenthood South Atlantic sued the state, noting that federal law gives Medicaid patients a right to access care at any qualified doctor's office willing to see them. The legal dispute for the court deals with whether Medicaid patients have a right to sue to enforce requirements included in spending laws approved by Congress — in this case, the mandate that patients can use the benefit at any qualified doctor's office. Without a right to sue, Planned Parenthood argues, it would be impossible to enforce those requirements. The Supreme Court has tended to view such rights-to-sue with skepticism, though a 7-2 majority found such a right in a related case two years ago. The court is expected to release more opinions Thursday and will need at least one other day — and possibly several more — to finish its work.
