logo
Abrego Garcia's attorneys say Trump administration has "stonewalled" in facilitating his release

Abrego Garcia's attorneys say Trump administration has "stonewalled" in facilitating his release

CBS News13-05-2025

Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who the Trump administration admitted was mistakenly included in a group of accused gang members sent to a prison in El Salvador, accused the government of having "stonewalled" the court-ordered facilitation of his return to the U.S.
"Plaintiffs have sought discovery to uncover the truth as to the Government's efforts (or lack thereof) as well as its abilities to facilitate Abrego Garcia's return—the essential issue in this case. Over and over, the Government has stonewalled Plaintiffs by asserting unsupported privileges— primarily state secrets and deliberative process—to withhold written discovery and to instruct witnesses not to answer even basic questions," the filing, published late Monday, says. "Even as the Government speaks freely about Abrego Garcia in public, in this litigation it insists on secrecy."
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered in April that the government must facilitate his release, a ruling that has been upheld by the Supreme Court.
Last week, the Trump administration appears to have invoked the state secrets privilege and other privileges to withhold information in the case from Abrego Garcia's attorneys as they continue to seek his release. The Justice Department had indicated last month that it would invoke certain privileges to protect information regarding Abrego Garcia's removal from the U.S., citing in a filing the attorney-client privilege, state secrets privilege and certain executive privileges.
The government's response to the allegations of stonewalling and their invocation of privilege were filed under seal with the court.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys said there is "little reason to believe" that invoking the state secrets privilege is appropriate in this case.
"No military or intelligence operations are involved, and it defies reason to imagine that the United States' relationship with El Salvador would be endangered by any effort to seek the return of a wrongfully deported person who the Government admits never should have been removed to El Salvador in the first place," Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote.
Xinis has set a hearing for May 16 to hear further arguments about the government's privilege invocations, as well as to hear arguments from Abrego Garcia's attorneys on their desire for more fact-finding in the case.
Xinis told a Justice Department attorney during a hearing last month that if the Trump administration does assert privileges, justifications must be provided for each claim, and she will make a determination as to whether they can stand.
The Trump administration has invoked the state secrets privilege before, in a case involving the deportations of Venezuelan migrants to the Salvadoran prison, called the Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, under war powers
In Abrego Garcia's case, Xinis had ordered the Trump administration to turn over documents to his lawyers and allowed them to conduct depositions with certain administration officials. Some of the records were initially due last month, but Xinis agreed to push back her deadlines after the Trump administration filed information with the court under seal. One day earlier, Xinis had accused the administration of showing a "willful and bad faith refusal to comply with discovery obligations."
Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote that all depositions were completed by the end of last week, but said they are not satisfied with the answers they have received.
President Trump and other top administration officials have repeatedly said it is up to El Salvador whether to release Abrego Garcia, who had been held at CECOT. As of April 21, he was being held at a lower-security facility in Santa Ana, according to a declaration from a State Department official.
Abrego Garcia, who was born in El Salvador, entered the U.S. illegally in 2011 and has been living in Maryland since then. He was granted a withholding of removal, a legal status, in 2019 that prevented the government from deporting him back to his home country of El Salvador because of a risk of persecution by local gangs.
But Abrego Garcia was among the hundreds of migrants, mostly Venezuelans, sent by the Trump administration to CECOT in March.
"The Court should reject the Government's efforts to hide behind the state secrets privilege and compel all Defendants from DHS and DOJ to fully respond to written discovery and all deponents from those departments to fully answer deposition questions," the attorneys wrote to Judge Xinis, adding later that "the state secrets privilege is not for hiding governmental blunders or malfeasance."

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Unsealed records in Abrego Garcia case offer few details that are new, unknown

time18 minutes ago

Unsealed records in Abrego Garcia case offer few details that are new, unknown

A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the unsealing of several court documents in the lawsuit over Kilmar Abrego Garcia's deportation, rejecting the Trump administration's arguments that it would risk national security. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland issued her order after media organizations, including The Associated Press, argued the public has a right to access court records under the First Amendment. Filings unsealed so far offer little information that's new or unknown publicly. Xinis described one document as 'relatively boilerplate.' It was a request by the Trump administration to temporarily halt discovery, an early phase of a lawsuit where parties share evidence. 'It does not disclose any potentially privileged or otherwise sensitive information for which a compelling government interest outweighs the right to access,' Xinis wrote. Xinis noted that some documents were public before the court was asked to seal them the next day. Those filings contained a back-and-forth between Abrego Garcia's attorneys and the U.S. government over efforts to return him from El Salvador. Trump administration lawyers often objected to answering questions, arguing that they involve state secrets, sensitive diplomatic negotiations and other protected information. For example, the U.S. attorneys mentioned 'appropriate diplomatic discussions with El Salvador.' But they wrote that disclosing the details 'could negatively impact any outcome.' Xinis also ordered the partial release of a transcript from an April 30 court hearing. Some of it will be reacted to protect potentially classified information. Wednesday's ruling was unrelated to the Trump administration pending invocation of the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine often used in military cases. The administration has argued that releasing information about the Abrego Garcia matter in open court — or even to the judge in private – could jeopardize national security. Xinis is yet to rule on the state secrets claim. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have argued that the Trump administration has done nothing to return the Maryland construction worker. They say the government is invoking the privilege to hide behind the misconduct of mistakenly deporting him and refusing to bring him back. Abrego Garcia's deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from expulsion to his native country. The immigration judge determined that Abrego Garcia faced likely persecution by a local Salvadoran gang that terrorized his family. Abrego Garcia's American wife sued over his deportation. Xinis ordered his return on April 4. The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back. President Donald Trump told ABC News in late April that he could retrieve Abrego Garcia with a phone call to El Salvador's president. But Trump said he wouldn't do it because Abrego Garcia is a member of the MS-13 gang, an allegation that Abrego Garcia denies and for which he was never charged.

Attorneys have had no contact with migrants held at military base in Djibouti, groups tell Supreme Court
Attorneys have had no contact with migrants held at military base in Djibouti, groups tell Supreme Court

CNN

time29 minutes ago

  • CNN

Attorneys have had no contact with migrants held at military base in Djibouti, groups tell Supreme Court

A group of migrants that the Trump's administration has been holding on a military base in Djibouti have been unable to contact their attorneys, immigrant rights groups told the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The detainees, who were initially bound for South Sudan, are part of a high-profile emergency appeal pending at the Supreme Court over the administration's effort to remove migrants to places other than their homeland. Lower courts have required officials to provide those migrants additional notice and an opportunity to claim a fear of being tortured. Groups representing the migrants, including the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said in a new brief that officials had 'set up a private interview room' on the base but that 'to date, counsel have not heard from them.' The migrants, the groups said, 'are stranded incommunicado in Djibouti, a country of which they have no knowledge, and en route to another country, South Sudan, where none have ever set foot and which remains engulfed in ongoing and intensifying armed conflict.' The Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with Trump amid a flurry of emergency cases that have reached its docket since the president returned to power. One issue on which the White House has not fared as well has been immigration, particularly in situations where due process concerns have been raised. The high court notably barred the administration last month from deporting other migrants under the 1789 Alien Enemies Act without more notice and a chance to have their cases reviewed. After a group of migrants facing deportation to countries other than their homeland sued over the administration's process, US District Judge Brian Murphy, a Joe Biden appointee, in March blocked officials from carrying out those removals without offering written notice and giving the targeted immigrants a chance to demonstrate they have a credible fear of persecution or torture in that other country. Murphy later said that the Trump administration 'unquestionably' violated his court order when it tried to transfer detainees to South Sudan. The Trump administration has argued Murphy's requirements are not included in federal law, and DHS officials have claimed they already have procedures in place to ensure that migrants are not persecuted in a third country. They have also described the migrants facing removal to South Sudan as having deep criminal records. But the attorneys representing the migrants at the Supreme Court pushed back on that assertion. The administration, they told the justices in their filing Wednesday, 'blatantly ignore the fact that many, if not the majority, of the class members in this case, including two of the named plaintiffs, have no criminal convictions whatsoever.' CNN's Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.

Attorneys have had no contact with migrants held at military base in Djibouti, groups tell Supreme Court
Attorneys have had no contact with migrants held at military base in Djibouti, groups tell Supreme Court

CNN

time30 minutes ago

  • CNN

Attorneys have had no contact with migrants held at military base in Djibouti, groups tell Supreme Court

A group of migrants that the Trump's administration has been holding on a military base in Djibouti have been unable to contact their attorneys, immigrant rights groups told the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The detainees, who were initially bound for South Sudan, are part of a high-profile emergency appeal pending at the Supreme Court over the administration's effort to remove migrants to places other than their homeland. Lower courts have required officials to provide those migrants additional notice and an opportunity to claim a fear of being tortured. Groups representing the migrants, including the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said in a new brief that officials had 'set up a private interview room' on the base but that 'to date, counsel have not heard from them.' The migrants, the groups said, 'are stranded incommunicado in Djibouti, a country of which they have no knowledge, and en route to another country, South Sudan, where none have ever set foot and which remains engulfed in ongoing and intensifying armed conflict.' The Supreme Court has repeatedly sided with Trump amid a flurry of emergency cases that have reached its docket since the president returned to power. One issue on which the White House has not fared as well has been immigration, particularly in situations where due process concerns have been raised. The high court notably barred the administration last month from deporting other migrants under the 1789 Alien Enemies Act without more notice and a chance to have their cases reviewed. After a group of migrants facing deportation to countries other than their homeland sued over the administration's process, US District Judge Brian Murphy, a Joe Biden appointee, in March blocked officials from carrying out those removals without offering written notice and giving the targeted immigrants a chance to demonstrate they have a credible fear of persecution or torture in that other country. Murphy later said that the Trump administration 'unquestionably' violated his court order when it tried to transfer detainees to South Sudan. The Trump administration has argued Murphy's requirements are not included in federal law, and DHS officials have claimed they already have procedures in place to ensure that migrants are not persecuted in a third country. They have also described the migrants facing removal to South Sudan as having deep criminal records. But the attorneys representing the migrants at the Supreme Court pushed back on that assertion. The administration, they told the justices in their filing Wednesday, 'blatantly ignore the fact that many, if not the majority, of the class members in this case, including two of the named plaintiffs, have no criminal convictions whatsoever.' CNN's Priscilla Alvarez contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store