Washington — A federal judge has temporarily pushed back the deadline for the Justice Department to disclose any actions it has taken or plans to take regarding the return of a Maryland man who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis instructed the Trump administration to provide her with information about Kilmar Abrego Garcia after the Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed her directive that the federal government must “facilitate” his release from custody in El Salvador.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Xinis ordered Homeland Security officials to disclose Abrego Garcia’s current location, his custodian status, the measures they have already taken to expedite his return to the U.S., and what additional steps will be taken, along with the expected timeline. She originally set a deadline of 9:30 a.m. Friday but extended it by two hours after the Justice Department filed a motion requesting an extension until next week.
Xinis has also scheduled a hearing in the case for Friday afternoon.
The attorneys representing Abrego Garcia opposed the government’s request, accusing the Justice Department of perpetuating a “delay, obfuscation, and disregard for court orders,” all while a person’s life and safety hang in the balance.
Abrego Garcia, who resides in Maryland with his wife and children, was apprehended and deported to El Salvador last month after officials from the Trump administration alleged he had connections to the MS-13 gang. However, his lawyers assert that he has no affiliations with MS-13 and has never been charged or convicted of any crimes in either the U.S. or El Salvador.
The 29-year-old is currently held at the infamous Salvadoran prison known as CECOT, along with other migrants who have been sent there as part of an agreement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele. Under this agreement, the U.S. is paying the Salvadoran government $6 million to detain U.S. detainees.
Abrego Garcia’s situation has become a significant issue in President Trump’s immigration policies after a U.S. immigration official acknowledged in a court filing that his deportation to El Salvador was the result of an “administrative error” and “oversight.”
In 2019, an immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia a form of relief known as withholding of removal, which prohibits the government from sending him back to El Salvador, as there is a substantial risk he would face persecution from local gangs, according to court documents.
While the Trump administration admitted the error in Abrego Garcia’s deportation, it contended that the district court lacks jurisdiction over the Salvadoran government and, as such, cannot compel it to release him. Justice Department attorneys have stated that Abrego Garcia remains in the custody of the Salvadoran government, so his return to the U.S. depends on his release.
Abrego Garcia and his wife have initiated a lawsuit in federal district court in Maryland following his arrest and deportation, claiming it violated federal immigration law. They are seeking a court order mandating his return to U.S. custody.
Xinis granted their request last week after a hearing, instructing the government to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. by 11:59 p.m. Monday. This matter eventually reached the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Roberts placed that deadline on hold to afford the court additional time to deliberate.
Then, on Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously determined that the Trump administration must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from Salvadoran custody and “ensure that his case is managed as it would have been had he not been improperly deported to El Salvador” — thus ensuring Abrego Garcia’s right to due process.
However, the Supreme Court also instructed the district court to clarify its order, particularly regarding the command that the government “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return.
“The district court should clarify its directive, with appropriate consideration for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in foreign affairs,” the court indicated. “In turn, the government should be ready to disclose what it can about the actions it has taken and the potential for further steps.”
