Judge Demands Daily Reports on Trump Administration’s Efforts to Return Wrongfully Deported Man
Following a Supreme Court ruling that the Trump Administration must assist in the return of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland resident wrongly deported to a prison in El Salvador last month, a federal judge on Friday mandated daily updates on the Administration’s efforts.
The unusual demand from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis highlights growing judicial discontent with what many legal experts perceive as the White House’s pattern of non-compliance and intensifies concerns about a potential constitutional crisis.
Judge Xinis issued the order during a tense hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland, where a Justice Department lawyer repeatedly refused to provide even basic information regarding Abrego García’s location or status. The judge questioned, “Where is he?” and later commented, “There is no evidence today as to where he is today. That is extremely troubling.”
Xinis is requiring the government to submit a daily sworn statement from an official knowledgeable about the situation. This statement must detail Abrego García’s location, custodial status, and any actions taken to ensure his return. According to CNN, she stated, “Even if the answer is that the government has no information, I want that on the record.”
The case has become a focal point in a wider dispute concerning executive authority, immigration enforcement, and judicial independence. Last week, Xinis ordered the government to return Abrego García by Monday at midnight. However, Trump officials claimed they lack the authority to return someone in the custody of a foreign government. The Supreme Court intervened on Thursday night, ruling unanimously that the Trump Administration must “facilitate” Abrego García’s return, but did not order the government to “effectuate” his return, as Xinis had directed. This distinction is now central to the Administration’s defense.
At Friday’s press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stressed “that it’s the Administration’s responsibility to facilitate the return, not to effectuate the return.” This raises questions about the extent of the Administration’s efforts to return Abrego García and the speed at which negotiations will commence. Leavitt added, “We very much appreciate President Bukele and El Salvador’s cooperation and the repatriation of Salvadorian gang members who the previous Administration allowed to infiltrate our country.” is scheduled to visit the White House on Monday.
However, legal experts suggest that the Administration’s ongoing refusal to fully comply with the courts indicates a broader breakdown of constitutional norms. While the Supreme Court’s ruling provided Abrego García’s legal team with a procedural victory, it also allowed for executive branch discretion, stating that further judicial orders must show “due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” The Trump Administration is using this language to argue that judges cannot force the President to negotiate with a foreign government.
Nevertheless, several lower courts have dismissed the Administration’s arguments. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed that federal courts maintain jurisdiction in the case, and Judge Xinis has clearly condemned the government’s actions. She wrote in a recent order, “The act of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was wholly illegal from the moment it happened.”
Abrego García, 29, was deported on March 15, despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that prohibited his removal to El Salvador due to credible threats from gangs targeting his family’s pupusa business. The government has acknowledged his removal as an “administrative error” but claims it cannot be compelled to bring him back, an argument that Supreme Court’s liberal justices have deemed factually incorrect and legally dangerous.
In a separate opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor and two other justices wrote that the Administration’s position suggests it could deport and imprison “any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”
Adding to the complexity are government allegations—unsupported by charges or public evidence—that Abrego García is linked to the MS-13 gang. The immigration judge who halted his removal in 2019 found no credible evidence to support this claim, and his attorneys assert that he has no criminal record and was a legal worker seeking a journeyman license in Maryland. U.S. Circuit Judge Stephanie Thacker wrote, “The government has made no effort to demonstrate that Abrego Garcia is, in fact, a member of any gang.”
The Administration’s handling of this case has worried many legal scholars, who view it as part of a concerning trend. In several high-profile cases, the Trump Administration has openly resisted or been slow to comply with court orders. Kim Wehle, a law professor at the University of Baltimore and former assistant U.S. attorney, stated last month, “The checks and balances are gone.”