
Judge limits Trump's ability to deport Abrego Garcia after lengthy court battle
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued a temporary restraining order on Wednesday prohibiting the Trump administration from immediately taking Salvadorian migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia into ICE custody for 72 hours after he is released from federal custody in Nashville, Tennessee.
Xinis said earlier this month that she would take action soon, in anticipation of a looming detention hearing for Abrego Garcia in his criminal case. She said she planned to issue the order with sufficient time to block the Trump administration's stated plans to immediately begin the process of deporting Abrego Garcia again upon release, this time to a third country such as Mexico or South Sudan.
Xinis's order said the additional time will ensure Abrego can raise any credible fears of removal to a third country, and via "the appropriate channels in the immigration process." She also ordered the government to provide Abrego and his attorneys with "immediate written notice" of plans to transport him to a third country, again with the 72-hour notice period, "so that Abrego Garcia may assert claims of credible fear or seek any other relief available to him under the law and the Constitution."
Xinis's order was handed down just three minutes before the judge in Nashville — U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw — issued a separate order on Wednesday, saying that Abrego should be released from criminal custody pending a trial date in January. Judge Crenshaw said in his order that the government failed to provide "any evidence that there is something in Abrego's history at warrants detention."
The plans, which Xinis ascertained over the course of a multi-day evidentiary hearing earlier this month, capped an exhausting, 19-week legal saga in the case of Abrego Garcia that spanned two continents, multiple federal courts, including the Supreme Court, and inspired countless hours of news coverage.
Still, it ultimately yielded little in the way of new answers, and Xinis likened the process to "nailing Jell-O to a wall," and "beating a frustrated and dead horse," among other things.
"We operate as government of laws," she scolded lawyers for the Trump administration in one of many terse exchanges. "We don't operate as a government of 'take my word for it.'"
Xinis had repeatedly floated the notion of a temporary restraining order, or TRO, to ensure certain safeguards were in place to keep Abrego Garcia in ICE custody, and appeared to agree with his attorneys that such an order is likely needed to prevent their client from being removed again, without access to counsel or without a chance to appeal his country of removal.
"I'm just trying to understand what you're trying to do," Xinis said on more than one occasion, growing visibly frustrated.
"I'm deeply concerned that if there's no restraint on you, Abrego will be on another plane to another country," she told the Justice Department, noting pointedly that "that's what you've done in other cases."
Those concerns were echoed by Abrego Garcia's attorneys in court last week.
They noted the times the Trump administration has appeared to have undercut or misrepresented its position before the court in months past, as Xinis attempted to ascertain the status of Abrego Garcia in El Salvador, and what efforts, if any, the Trump administration was making to comply with a court order to facilitate his return.
The Trump administration, who reiterated that the case is no longer in her jurisdiction, will almost certainly move to immediately appeal the restraining order to a higher court.
The order followed an extraordinary, multi-day evidentiary hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland, where Xinis sparred with Trump administration officials as she attempted to make sense of their remarks and ascertain their next steps as they look to deport Abrego Garcia to a third country as early as Wednesday, July 16.
She said she planned to issue the order before that court date, when Abrego could possibly be released by U.S. Magistrate Judge Waverly Crenshaw.
Lawyers for Abrego Garcia, meanwhile, asked the court for more time in ICE custody, citing the many countries he might suffer persecution in — and concerns about what legal status he would have in the third country of removal.
Without legal status in Mexico, Xinis said, it would likely be a "quick road" to being deported by the country's government to El Salvador, in violation of the withholding of removal order.
And in South Sudan, another country DHS is apparently considering, lawyers for Abrego noted the State Department currently has a Level 4 advisory in place discouraging U.S. travel due to violence and armed conflict.
Americans who do travel there should "draft a will" beforehand and designate insurance beneficiaries, according to official guidance on the site.
In court, Xinis struggled at times to keep her own frustration and her incredulity at bay after months of back-and-forth with Justice Department attorneys.
Xinis has presided over Abrego Garcia's civil case since March, when he was deported to El Salvador in violation of an existing court order in what Trump administration officials described as an "administrative error."
She spent hours pressing Justice Department officials, over the course of three separate hearings, for details on the government's plans for removing Abrego Garcia to a third country — a process she likened to "trying to nail Jell-O to a wall."
Xinis on Friday chastised the Justice Department for presenting a DHS witness to testify under oath about ICE's plans to deport Abrego Gaarcia one day earlier, fuming that the official, Thomas Giles, "knew nothing" about his case, and made no effort to ascertain answers — despite his rank as ICE's third-highest enforcement official.
The four hours of testimony he provided was "fairly stunning," and "insulting to her intelligence," Xinis said.
Ultimately, the court would not allow the "unfettered release" of Abrego Garcia pending release from federal custody on Wednesday in Tennessee without "full-throated assurances" from the Trump administration that it will keep Abrego Garcia in ICE custody for a set period of time and locally, Xinis said, to ensure immigration officials do not "spirit him away to Nome, Alaska."
The Justice Department, after a short recess, declined to agree, prompting Xinis to proceed with her plans for the TRO.
Xinis told the court that ultimately, "much delta" remains between where they ended things in court, and what she is comfortable with, given the government's actions in the past.
This was apparent on multiple occasions Friday, when Xinis told lawyers for the Trump administration that she "isn't buying" their arguments or doesn't "have faith" in the statements they made — reflecting an erosion of trust that could prove damaging in the longer-term.
The hearings this week capped months of back-and-forth between Xinis and the Trump administration, as she tried, over the course of 17 weeks, to track the status of a single migrant deported erroneously by the Trump administration to El Salvador—and to trace what attempts, if any, they had made facilitate his return to the U.S.
Xinis previously took aim at what she deemed to be the lack of information submitted to the court as part of an expedited discovery process she ordered this year, describing the government's submissions as "vague, evasive and incomplete"— and which she said demonstrated "willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations."
On Friday, she echoed this view. "You have taken the presumption of regularity and you've destroyed it, in my view," Xinis said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
Ammunition Depot Issues Update on California Ammunition Sales - Ninth Circuit Victory on Hold as State Seeks En Banc Review
Ninth Circuit Victory on Hold as California Seeks En Banc Rehearing BOCA RATON, Fla., Aug. 8, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- In a major Second Amendment ruling, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California's 2016 law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases and prohibiting direct mail-order sales, declaring those laws unconstitutional. . The decision, issued in Rhode v. Bonta, marks a significant victory for Ammunition Depot, the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and fellow plaintiffs challenging those laws. However, California officials have now moved to challenge that ruling by seeking a rehearing en banc (full court review) at the Ninth Circuit, which means the panel's decision will not take effect immediately. As a result, California's current ammunition regulations, including in-store background checks and restrictions on direct shipments of ammo, remain in force pending further court proceedings. Under the still-operative law (Proposition 63, passed in 2016), California residents must buy ammunition through in-state licensed dealers and undergo a background check for each purchase, which effectively bans direct online ammo sales to homes. Ammunition Depot is urging its California customers to remain patient and continue following all current state laws regarding ammunition transactions while the legal process unfolds. Under the California DOJ's interpretation, the state's ammunition restrictions remain in effect while the case proceeds. The company will immediately begin direct shipments to California customers if and when the court's mandate is allowed to take effect, but that cannot happen unless Ammunition Depot prevails in the next phase of the case. "We know this is frustrating for California gun owners who were hopeful the recent court decision would restore their ammo buying freedom right away," said Seth Weinstein, Founder & Managing Partner of Ammunition Depot. "Unfortunately, the victory is on hold because the State of California is fighting tooth and nail to keep these restrictions in place. We respect the legal process, but believe Californians' rights should not be delayed any longer. Our customers in California have waited years for relief, and we're not about to give up now, we'll continue this fight to its finish." The California Attorney General has formally requested that a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges reexamine the case. This next phase of the case could take several months, depending on whether en banc review is granted and how quickly the court acts. First, the active judges of the Ninth Circuit will decide whether to grant en banc review. If granted, an 11-judge panel will be convened to rehear the case, likely later this year or in early 2026. Because California has now filed for en banc review, the panel's ruling will not take effect unless that petition is denied or resolved. The mandate remains pending, and the 2016 California ammunition laws continue to be enforced during this stage of the appeal. "We anticipated that California would not back down easily, and we are fully prepared to see this through," Weinstein continued. "The Ninth Circuit's decision was a huge win for the Constitution and millions of law-abiding Californians, and we remain confident that win will ultimately prevail, whether at an en banc hearing or at the Supreme Court. California's leaders have made it clear they won't back down, and neither will we. We owe it to our customers and all Californians to keep fighting until their rights are restored." In the meantime, Ammunition Depot will continue to keep California customers informed. The company previously celebrated the Ninth Circuit panel's ruling as a historic affirmation of Second Amendment rights, and it remains a lead plaintiff in defending that ruling through the next stages of Weinstein emphasized that California customers must still abide by current law until the case is fully resolved. "California law remains unchanged for now," said Weinstein. "We urge all California customers to continue purchasing ammunition through licensed in-state channels. We know it's frustrating, but we don't want anyone caught in a legal gray area. If you attempt to order from us today, we regret that we are still unable to ship to you under the current law. But hang tight; we are hopeful that day is coming. We have fought for years to make online ammo sales to California legal again, and we are not stopping now." Ammunition Depot will provide additional updates as soon as the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court provides clarity on the next steps. The company remains optimistic that the result will be a permanent victory for California gun owners. "We've come this far, and the momentum is on our side," Weinstein said. "It may take a bit more time, but we believe freedom will win out. We want to thank all our customers for their support and patience. We promise to notify everyone as soon as we are legally able to resume shipments to California. That day will be cause for celebration, not just for our company, but for everyone who values the Second Amendment." About Ammunition Depot: Founded in 2011, Ammunition Depot is one of the largest online retailers and suppliers of ammunition, firearms, and tactical gear in the United States. The company is dedicated to offering the best products at competitive prices while promoting and protecting the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. For more information, please visit PR Contact:Ammunition DepotJeff WisotPhone: (561) 381-9526Email: Or Murray Road AgencyJonathan HarlingEmail: View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Ammunition Depot 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
Yahoo
a minute ago
- Yahoo
An EPA proposal could lead U.S. auto makers to shift their strategy on EVs
A new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal to revoke a landmark greenhouse gas finding could reshape the auto industry, which until now has had to abide by strict emissions guidelines. The EPA on July 29 announced it is planning to revoke an "endangerment finding" from 2009 that has served as the legal and scientific basis for the agency's regulation of greenhouse gas emissions across multiple industries, including motor vehicles, power plants, oil and gas producers and aircraft. The proposal, which still needs to go through a public comment period, focuses on regulations affecting the auto industry. If passed, it would repeal all greenhouse gas standards for light-, medium- and heavy-duty vehicles and heavy-duty engines. Switch Auto Insurance and Save Today! Affordable Auto Insurance, Customized for You The Insurance Savings You Expect Great Rates and Award-Winning Service "With this proposal, the Trump EPA is proposing to end 16 years of uncertainty for auto makers and American consumers," Lee Zeldin, the administrator of EPA, stated in the announcement. Strict standards for emissions and fuel efficiency introduced during the Obama administration and expanded during the Biden administration, which also provided generous EV funding, has led many auto makers to add electric vehicles to their fleets in recent years. Others, like Volvo, have taken things a step further and committed to a fully electric future. But the landscape is shifting under President Trump, who has pushed forward a deregulatory agenda. Experts say that if this proposal passes, it will ease pressure on auto makers to produce electric cars, enabling them to adapt their mix of EV and gas-powered vehicle offerings to meet consumer demand. "It gives auto makers a little bit better ability to build, to produce and put vehicles on market that are more closely aligned with the pace of electric adoption right now," said Stephanie Brinley, a principal automotive analyst at S&P Global. John Bozzella, president and CEO Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents most of the major car manufacturers in the U.S., said in an email to CBS MoneyWatch that the trade association is reviewing the announcement. "At the same time," he added, "there's no question the vehicle emissions regulations finalized under the previous administration aren't achievable and should be revised to reflect current market conditions, to keep the auto industry in America competitive, and to keep the industry on a path of vehicle choice and lower emissions." A spokesperson from the EPA said Congress never explicitly gave EPA authority to impose greenhouse gas regulations for cars and trucks and that the agency's proposal to revoke the endangerment finding "does not prohibit vehicle manufacturers from developing EVs or different vehicles." Focus on consumer demand Experts say that even amid a shifting regulatory landscape, consumer preference will continue to drive auto makers' decisions. "Their focus is going to be on making vehicles more affordable and dealing with the fact that consumers, not the government, are standing in the way of the mass adoption for EVs," Patrick Anderson, founder of Michigan-based consulting firm Anderson Economic Group. The rate of electric vehicle adoption has been steady over the last several years, although the majority of Americans still fuel their cars at the pump. Demand for the vehicles has waned over the last year, according to data on light vehicle registration from S&P Global Mobility. From January to May, the electric vehicle market share was 7.3%, compared with 8% for the entire year of 2024, data from the auto intelligence provider shows. But while consumer demand may have stalled slightly over the past year, auto makers will still want to offer low-emissions products in order to stay competitive both at home and abroad, Ivan Drury, director of insights at online car marketplace Edmunds, told CBS MoneyWatch. "Every auto maker is a global competitor, and even though they might not be selling as well here, they could sell elsewhere better," he said. Impact would take time Experts say the proposal, if passed, wouldn't drastically change any near-term plans of auto makers, given the time and money they have already invested in their product lines. "If had already planned to build X number of this kind of vehicle, you can change that, but not necessarily tomorrow," said Brinley. "So that's gonna have to be planned out." Product development cycles at car manufacturers span five to 10 years, according to a report from Eurasia Group, a global research firm. The exact strategy and speed with which companies make changes would vary from auto maker to auto maker, according to experts. "For now, auto makers would enjoy the flexibility and lower costs from less stringent emissions limits, particularly in their nonelectric fleet planning," the report from Eurasia says. There are concerns among some companies that the EPA's proposal, if passed, would inject a degree of chaos into industry, David Victor, a professor at University of California San Diego, told CBS MoneyWatch. Also, the rule-making process will likely be challenged in the courts, he said. "[Auto makers] will not get a reliable new set of rules anytime soon," said Victor. The EPA is holding a virtual public hearing on the proposed rule on Aug. 19-20, with a public comment period open through Sept. 15. Global stock markets react to Trump's sweeping tariffs in effect now Sean "Diddy" Combs wants to go back to Madison Square Garden in the future, attorney says Neil deGrasse Tyson weighs in on plans for a moon-based nuclear reactor


CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
Justice Department opens investigation into New York attorney general who prosecuted Trump
The Justice Department has subpoenaed New York Attorney General Letitia James' office as part of a criminal investigation into President Donald Trump's long-time adversary, according to multiple people familiar with the matter. Two grand jury subpoenas were issued by the US attorney's office for the Northern District of New York seeking information about James' investigations into the Trump Organization and National Rifle Association, the sources said. The subpoenas are the latest example of the Trump administration taking on the president's perceived enemies. The Justice Department declined to comment. This story is breaking and will be updated.