U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis lamented the way the Trump administration handled Ábrego García’s case. He was ultimately wrongfully deported to El Salvador and she’s spoken out extensively about his traumatic separation from her. The lower court had ruled that the administration needed to “effectuate” his return. Yet Xinis found that they failed to implement this directive effectively. García’s deportation prompted national outrage. He was transferred to a hellhole of a prison in El Salvador famous for its extreme human rights violations.
Ábrego García would have been safe from deportation due to his legal status. Due to missteps on the part of the administration, he was pushed out. After years in limbo, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of García’s return. They reiterated that the government needs to do everything in its power to bring him home safely. As Judge Xinis recently pointed out during a hearing, the administration’s actions did not satisfy this mandate.
To date nothing has been done,” Xinis said, emphasizing her anger with the lack of action in the case. She pointed out that President Trump’s announcement of the situation during a press conference with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele did not constitute compliance with the court’s order. The judge ordered García’ lawyers to work up discovery questions for the administration. To do so, they must double down on its work to win his return by this Wednesday.
The administration defended its stance, claiming it had sought to comply with the Supreme Court’s decision when Trump addressed the issue. Judge Xinis dismissed their characterization as lacking factual support, stating, “Your characterization is not bound in fact. I need facts.” This critique points to a very big problem. Specifically, it centers on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) various and conflicting interpretations of what it means to “facilitate.”
In a recent order, Judge Xinis put a stop to the administration’s outrageous assertions that discussions at cabinet-level were taking place over García’s case. Ensign, one of the administration’s signers to the agreement, contended that it had brought the issue up to the “highest levels.” Xinis called for action without delay. He recommended that officials be prepared to be questioned on their past comments and takedowns.
It’s not clear what the administration’s position would be on García returning in that capacity. They argued that even if he’s repatriated to the US, the Justice Department could still attempt to deport him to a third country. Alternatively, they might try to have the order lifting his removal to El Salvador blocked.
Ábrego García’s attorney, Rina Gandhi, celebrated the hearing as a step in the right direction. She knew that their battle had just begun. As Villanueva pointed out, advocacy can’t stop here. We need to make sure García isn’t re-victimized by an injustice like this one.
This crisis has received widespread attention. It’s not only the legal implications that matter here. It’s the larger picture of U.S. immigration policy under the Trump administration. These different narratives from the administration and judiciary are illustrative of the difficulties, even still, to play out when dealing with multidimensional and difficult immigration cases.
As this case unfolds, it serves as a reminder of why due process is so important. Second, it highlights the importance of high-quality legal counsel in immigration cases. The court’s insistence on factual compliance underscores the need for transparency and accountability from government officials tasked with upholding justice.