GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge expressed frustration with attorneys from the Trump administration during a hearing on Tuesday, criticizing their late request for an extension in a case involving Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant and alleged member of the MS-13 gang. The judge characterized the administration’s approach as careless and lacking urgency.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis denied the Justice Department’s request for an additional 30 days to respond, highlighting that officials waited until the same day their answer was due to seek more time. She pointed out the Justice Department’s failure to demonstrate any legitimate reason for postponing compliance with prior court orders.
During the hearing, Xinis remarked on the administration’s vague assertions that they had invested considerable resources in the case, referring to such claims as insufficient. “These are burdens of their own making,” the judge stated, emphasizing the expectation that the Justice Department should adhere to the court’s directives.
Xinis noted that this case has already involved multiple court hearings, yet the government had not previously indicated a need for more time to respond to the allegations. “To claim that they require additional time now feels hollow,” she explained while emphasizing the defendants’ familiarity with the issues at hand.
Hours later, the Trump administration filed a motion to dismiss the case, citing a supposed “lack of jurisdiction.” As of this report, Judge Xinis has not publicly responded to this dismissal motion.
This legal battle centers around Abrego Garcia, who was deported back to El Salvador amid claims that his removal was due to an administrative error. In April, Xinis had ordered the administration to comply with an expedited discovery process to clarify whether they were adhering to a Supreme Court directive to assist in his return to the United States.
Ongoing disputes over what it means to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return have led to continuous back-and-forth exchanges between the government’s attorneys and Xinis. The judge has previously expressed her exasperation, noting that exchanges have not produced the clarity necessary for the court to feel assured about the government’s compliance.
Throughout the proceedings, Xinis has criticized the administration for their vague and incomplete briefings regarding their compliance with her orders. She has also pointed out their attempts to invoke the state secrets privilege, which she deemed inappropriate given the context of the case.
The tensions illustrate broader struggles between the Trump administration and various courts regarding immigration policies, particularly those influenced by the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which has been used to expedite deportations.
Xinis has shown increasing impatience regarding the government’s adherence to her orders, raising concerns over repeated assertions that Abrego Garcia was legally detained and deported. “I’ve lost count of the number of ‘I don’t knows’ we have encountered,” she remarked, highlighting the challenges faced during depositions of Trump administration officials.
As Abrego Garcia’s situation unfolds, uncertainty remains about whether Judge Xinis will initiate contempt proceedings against the administration for non-compliance with court rulings. Previous courts, including one in Washington D.C., identified probable causes for such actions, reflecting ongoing scrutiny of the administration’s immigration practices.
This case underscores the complexities of U.S. immigration law and the challenges faced by migrants caught in the crosshairs of policy decisions. The Trump administration’s ongoing legal battles and the responses of the judiciary continue to evolve, influencing the future of immigration proceedings.
This article was automatically written by Open AI, and the people, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate. Any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by contacting contact@publiclawlibrary.org.