NASHVILLE, Tenn. — Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s legal team has filed a motion in federal court seeking to prevent senior officials from the Trump administration from making what they deem to be damaging public statements about their client. The request aims to restrict comments from figures such as Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi, who have publicly accused Abrego Garcia of serious crimes after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador earlier this year.
The motion was submitted shortly after Abrego Garcia was released from pre-trial custody, only to be immediately detained again by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for potential deportation. A Maryland judge has intervened, blocking his deportation while reviewing the ongoing case against him.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers claim that since his release, federal officials have unleashed a series of inflammatory and misleading statements in the media that infringe upon his right to a fair trial. They specifically cited comments made by Noem, who labeled him as an “MS-13 gang member,” and Bondi, who compared him to “foreign terrorist organizations.”
The legal representation also highlighted the extensive amount of derogatory content shared by the Department of Homeland Security on social media, asserting that it unjustly portrays Abrego Garcia as associated with gang activity, which he has consistently denied.
“The government’s continuous stream of prejudicial remarks threatens the integrity of this case,” the motion states, warning that such declarations could taint public perception and compromise the potential jury pool. The lawyers further argued that the hostile environment created by these statements could discourage necessary defense witnesses from coming forward.
Their request calls for a judicial order to halt all comments from Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security officials that might prejudice the case. This follows a ruling from U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, who mandated that all attorneys involved adhere to local guidelines surrounding public commentary in ongoing criminal matters.
Responding to the motion, a senior DHS official remarked that Abrego Garcia had placed himself in such a position through his illegal entry into the U.S. and purported criminal behavior, leading to their public criticisms. The official asserted that the narrative surrounding Abrego Garcia is one of a “criminal illegal alien” whose alleged actions should be condemned, declaring the media’s coverage of his case as misleading.
This legal maneuver comes as Abrego Garcia faces charges related to allegedly transporting undocumented immigrants, a claim he disputes, while also dealing with potential deportation to countries in East Africa, including Uganda.
Originally from El Salvador, Abrego Garcia entered the United States illegally in 2011. Despite an immigration judge’s ruling that barred his deportation due to fears of gang violence, he was removed from the country in March of this year—a move later acknowledged by federal officials as an administrative error. After his deportation, he spent months imprisoned, despite the judge’s prior order.
In June, a Tennessee judge permitted his release from custody while scheduling a trial for January. However, federal officials cautioned that his release could lead to another deportation attempt.
This past week, after being detained by ICE again, Abrego Garcia’s legal team was informed that he might face deportation to Uganda. Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland has temporarily barred his removal until early October, during which time she will review a habeas corpus petition on his behalf. Additionally, his lawyers are pursuing the dismissal of criminal charges they characterize as vindictive and selective.
This article was automatically generated by OpenAI. The details, events, and people mentioned may be inaccurate. For requests to remove, retract, or correct the article, please contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org.