Federal Judge Slams Justice Department’s Attempt to Dismiss Lawsuit Over Erroneous Deportation

A federal judge rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to dismiss a lawsuit brought by Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. In a sharp rebuke during a recent court hearing, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis dismissed one of the government’s motions as “meritless” and expressed concern over the department’s handling of the case.

Judge Xinis, appointed by President Obama, has not yet ruled on Abrego Garcia’s request to be relocated to a Maryland federal detention facility while he awaits trial in Tennessee on human trafficking charges. However, she made it clear that the government’s legal arguments to dismiss the lawsuit fell far short.

“You made three arguments, defendants, and none are availing … meritless,” Xinis told Justice Department attorney Bridget O’Hickey during the hearing.

Abrego Garcia was deported in March as part of a group of over 250 Venezuelan and Salvadoran men sent back to El Salvador. Upon arrival, he was imprisoned in the country’s notorious high-security facility known as CECOT. Shortly after his deportation, he filed a federal lawsuit challenging his removal, asserting it had been conducted unlawfully and without due process.

In a surprising development, Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States in June—after a sealed criminal indictment was filed against him in Tennessee on May 21. This indictment came just six days after the Justice Department had told the Maryland court that it had no power to bring him back from El Salvador. Judge Xinis criticized the apparent contradiction and questioned whether the indictment was used as a tool to return Abrego Garcia under the radar of her court.

“Obviously you did have the power to produce Mr. Abrego because you produced him less than a week later,” she told the government.

Xinis questioned whether the Justice Department had deliberately concealed its intent to bring criminal charges in order to facilitate his return without notifying the court or his attorneys.

“It’s highly problematic,” she said, referencing the lack of communication from the government. “We knew it was coming because eventually it was unsealed,” she added, indicating that her court had been kept in the dark while significant developments unfolded behind the scenes.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys told the judge they learned about his return to the U.S. through media reports, not through any official government notice. Once back on American soil, he was immediately charged in Tennessee based on allegations stemming from a 2019 traffic stop. He remains incarcerated in Tennessee awaiting trial.

During the hearing, O’Hickey argued that the lawsuit should now be dismissed, suggesting that the case is moot because Abrego Garcia is no longer in El Salvador. She also claimed the government had been actively negotiating with El Salvador to facilitate his return during the same period it had filed the motion to dismiss.

“How can this representation be one I can credit?” Xinis asked, pushing back on the Justice Department’s shifting narrative.

“At some point, don’t you have an obligation to say, ‘Judge, we have the power, we produced him, moot’?” she pressed.

Xinis also questioned whether the Justice Department’s legal team handling the Maryland case knew about the sealed indictment in Tennessee, and whether the indictment itself had been used as a workaround to avoid complying with her court order.

O’Hickey responded that negotiations with El Salvador were ongoing and that it was uncertain how or when an agreement for return would materialize. She insisted that the indictment was not coordinated with the deportation litigation and that law enforcement had begun investigating Abrego Garcia by April, a timeline that contradicts statements made in Tennessee’s criminal proceedings.

Xinis remained unconvinced and rejected a second Justice Department motion to dismiss based on mootness. She expressed concern that Abrego Garcia could be deported again if he were released from custody, and asked the government to commit to a clear process that would allow the court to maintain oversight and protect his due process rights.

The judge suggested that the Justice Department could name a specific country where deportation might occur and offer a reasonable period for Abrego Garcia to challenge the removal. Alternatively, the government could enter a binding agreement to ensure he would not be deported without adequate notice or an opportunity to be heard.

“It’s about clarity and due process,” Xinis said. “This court needs assurances that its orders will be respected and that fundamental legal protections are upheld.”

The case remains ongoing, with further rulings expected in the coming weeks as the court decides whether Abrego Garcia will be moved to Maryland and how the government will respond to the court’s concerns.