Kilmar Abrego Garcia suffered psychological and physical torture in El Salvador prison, attorneys say
Abrego, of Maryland, was deported to El Salvador in March by the Trump administration in an "administrative error" and was returned to the U.S. in June to face federal charges. At the time of his removal from the U.S., Abrego was protected from deportation by a 2019 court order.
His high-profile case was pushed into the national spotlight, sparking heated debate over Trump's immigration crackdown and the race to deport people, at times without due process.
Abrego was deported on March 15 to El Salvador and placed into CECOT, a mega prison and terrorism confinement center known for brutal and harsh conditions.
There, he was allegedly subjected to severe beatings, sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture, his attorneys said in an amended complaint filed Wednesday. That complaint is part of a federal lawsuit filed by Abego's wife against the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
The complaint states that upon arrival at CECOT, Abrego was forced to strip, issued prison clothing, kicked in the legs with boots, and struck on his head and arms to change faster. His head was also allegedly shaved, and he was frog-marched to a cell while being hit with wooden batons.
The following day, he had "visible bruises and lumps all over his body," the complaint said.
In that cell, he and 20 other Salvadorans "were forced to kneel from approximately 9 p.m. to 6 a.m., with guards striking anyone who fell from exhaustion," the filing said. During that time, Abrego was denied bathroom access and soiled himself, according to the complaint.
The inmates were confined to metal bunks with no mattresses in overcrowded cells without windows and bright lights that stayed on 24 hours a day, the complaint says.
While there, prison officials repeatedly told Abrego that "they would transfer him to cells containing gang members who, they assured him, would 'tear' him apart," the complaint says.
The attorneys said Abrego observed prisoners violently harm each other without intervention.
"Screams from nearby cells would similarly ring out throughout the night without any response from prison guards or personnel," the complaint says.
In his first two weeks, he lost 31 pounds.
On April 9, the complaint says Abrego and four others were transferred to a different module in CECOT. But the next day, he was transferred alone to the Centro Industrial prison facility in Santa Ana, El Salvador.
Throughout his time in El Salvador, his lawyers say Abrego was denied any communications with his family and access to counsel until Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) visited him on April 17.
The Supreme Court ruled in April that his removal was 'illegal' and determined that a judge's order for the administration to facilitate his return was proper.
Abrego was ultimately returned to the U.S. on June 6, following a contentious back-and-forth between the court and the Trump administration that raised concerns about defiance of the judicial branch.
The government has repeatedly accused the 29-year-old of being involved with the gang MS-13 — claims Abrego's family and attorneys have denied.
His attorneys say Abrego, who is from El Salvador, left the country when he was around 16 years old to flee gang violence. In 2011, Abrego entered the U.S. without inspection and stayed in Maryland, where his older brother, a U.S. citizen, lived, the complaint said.
In the Wednesday filing, attorneys for the Abrego family ask Judge Paula Xinis to rule that over the course of this entire ordeal — from the time he was picked up in that Maryland parking lot to when he was returned to the US — the government violated laws, and his Fifth Amendment right to due process.
They also want Abrego returned to Maryland and, separately, want a habeas corpus hearing held in Maryland.
When Abrego returned last month, the Justice Department said he would face human smuggling charges in Tennessee. He is accused of transporting people not legally in the U.S. within the country.
He allegedly participated in a conspiracy over nine years to move people from Texas deeper into the country, including members of MS-13, the Trump administration said.
Abrego's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, has insisted that he was not involved in criminal activity.
"Kilmar worked in construction and sometimes transported groups of workers between job sites, so it's entirely plausible he would have been pulled over while driving with others in the vehicle," his wife previously said in a statement. "He was not charged with any crime or cited for any wrongdoing" at the time.
The family's attorney, Chris Newman, previously said the Trump administration's efforts are part of a "campaign of disinformation, defamation against Kilmar and his family."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
35 minutes ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
July 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called "third countries" where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out. The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." The court said that Murphy should now "cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order." Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision, criticizing the court's actions. "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion. Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the majority on Thursday. "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed," Kagan wrote in a brief opinion. Murphy's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-U.S. citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order "remains in full force and effect." Calling that ruling by the judge a "lawless act of defiance," the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well. Murphy's ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its "lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan," and disrupted diplomatic relations. Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation. The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Sotomayor in a dissent called the court's June 23 decision pausing Murphy's injunction a "gross abuse" of its power that now exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death." After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures." Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The Justice Department noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture." The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Former CBS anchor slams Paramount settlement with Trump: ‘It was a sellout'
A former CBS News anchor and 60 minutes correspondent, Dan Rather, has blasted the $16m settlement between Paramount, the parent company of CBS News, and Donald Trump, calling it a 'sad day for journalism'. 'It's a sad day for 60 Minutes and CBS News,' Rather, a veteran journalist who was a CBS News anchor for over 20 years, told Variety in an interview published Wednesday. 'I hope people will read the details of this and understand what it was. It was distortion by the president and a kneeling down and saying, 'yes, sir,' by billionaire corporate owners.' Last November, Trump sued CBS News, claiming that the network's interview with Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, had been doctored to portray her in a favorable light – which he alleged amounted to 'election interference'. Many legal experts had widely dismissed the lawsuit as 'meritless' and unlikely to hold up under the first amendment, but on Wednesday Paramount announced that it had agreed to pay Trump $16m to settle the case over the interview that was broadcast on the CBS News program 60 Minutes. The settlement comes as Paramount is preparing for a $8bn merger with Skydance Media, which requires approval from the US Federal Communications Commission. Paramount has said that the lawsuit is separate from the company's merger. A spokesperson for Trump's legal team said in a statement to the Guardian that 'With this record settlement, President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.' 'CBS and Paramount Global realized the strength of this historic case and had no choice but to settle' the spokesperson added. According to Wednesday's announcement, the settlement funds will not be paid to Trump directly, but instead would be allocated to Trump's future presidential library. The settlement did not include an apology. Rather told Variety on Wednesday that in his opinion 'you settle a lawsuit when you've done something wrong' and '60 minutes did nothing wrong, it followed accepted journalistic practices'. 'Lawyers almost unanimously said the case wouldn't stand up in court,' he said. Ultimately though, Rather said he was disappointed but not surprised by the settlement. 'Big billionaire businesspeople make decisions about money' he said. 'We could always hope that they will make an exception when it comes to freedom of the press, but it wasn't to be. 'Trump knew if he put the pressure on and threatened and just held that they would fold, because there's too much money on the table' Rather said. 'Trump is now forcing a whole news organization to pay millions of dollars for doing something protected by the constitution – which is, of course, free and independent reporting. Now, you take today's sellout. And that's what it was: It was a sellout to extortion by the president. Who can now say where all this ends?'. He continued: 'It has to do with not just journalism, but more importantly, with the country as a whole. What kind of country we're going to have, what kind of country we're going to be. If major news organizations continue to kneel before power and stop trying to hold the powerful accountable, then we all lose.' In his more than 60 years in journalism, Rather told Variety he has never seen the profession face the kind of challenges as those it faces today. 'Journalism has had its trials and tribulations before, and it takes courage to just soldier on,' Rather said. 'Keep trying, keep fighting. It takes guts to do that. And I know the people at CBS News, and particularly those at 60 Minutes, they'll do their dead level best under these circumstances. But the question is what this development and the message it sends to us. And that's what I'm trying to concentrate on.'
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Supreme Court paves the way for Trump to send migrants to South Sudan
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday clarified that a recent decision does not prevent President Donald Trump from trying to send eight convicted criminals to South Sudan, a move that had been blocked by a federal judge who accused the administration of defying his instructions. In an order, the court clarified its decision from June 23 that made it easier for the U.S. to deport migrants to "third countries" to which they have no previous connection. The Supreme Court said in the unsigned order that its earlier ruling applied to the eight men, who are being held in a U.S. facility in Djibouti. Two of the court's liberal members, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. "What the government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death," Sotomayor wrote. The Justice Department had asked the court to clarify its decision, accusing Massachusetts-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of being in "unprecedented defiance" of the justices. Murphy had previously blocked the South Sudan deportations because he deemed them to be in violation of an earlier ruling he made. That ruling said the government must give migrants a 'meaningful opportunity' to bring claims that they would be at risk of torture, persecution or death if they were sent to countries the administration has made deals with to receive immigrants who cannot be sent elsewhere. The Supreme Court in June blocked Murphy's broad nationwide order, but both Murphy and lawyers representing the plaintiffs said the decision did not apply to the ongoing litigation over whether the eight men in Djibouti needed to have an opportunity to raise specific concerns about being sent to South Sudan. The men are from various countries, including Myanmar and Vietnam, and were all convicted of serious crimes in the United States. They were detained in Djibouti after Murphy ruled that the administration had defied his nationwide order by putting them on a flight bound for South Sudan. Some have had a "reasonable fear" of interviews with immigration officials as required by Murphy's order, but no adjudications have been made, their lawyers say. In its most recent filing at the Supreme Court, the Trump administration said it had received assurances from South Sudan that the men "will not be subject to torture" under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Murphy, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, has come under heavy fire from MAGA world as a result of his rulings in the case. The Supreme Court's original decision merely said that Murphy's nationwide ruling was blocked, but did not explain its reasoning or how exactly it should be applied. The court's three liberal justices dissented, with Sotomayor saying that Murphy's decision requiring due process for the eight men in Djibouti was not implicated. The majority did not dispute that.
