A federal judge is putting the Trump administration’s deportation machine under a microscope. On Monday, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis grilled Justice Department lawyers over their plan to deport Salvadorian migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a third country as early as July 16, despite his ongoing criminal case in Tennessee.
Fox News reported that in a packed courtroom in Greenbelt, Maryland, Xinis demanded clarity on the administration’s next steps for Abrego Garcia, a man already mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March 2025 due to what officials called an “administrative error.”
The hearing addressed plans to remove him again, this time to an unnamed third country, even as he faces federal charges in Tennessee. It’s a case that highlights the tension between immigration enforcement and due process.
Back in March, Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador in a move the government later admitted was a mistake. By April 28, 2025, the Trump administration had secured an indictment against him in Tennessee over a 2022 traffic stop, launching a criminal investigation.
Yet, in May, government lawyers told Xinis they had no power to bring him back to the U.S., a claim that raised eyebrows.
Xinis didn’t buy the government’s story. “At the same time that [the government] was saying it had ‘no power to produce’ Abrego Garcia, Trump administration officials had ‘already secured an indictment against him,’ right?” she pressed Justice Department lawyer Bridget O’Hickey, who sheepishly confirmed the timeline.
The judge’s frustration was palpable, and for good reason: the administration’s left hand didn’t seem to know what the right was doing. The government’s earlier deportation of Abrego Garcia sparked outrage, with demonstrators gathering outside the Greenbelt courthouse on July 7 to protest what they see as heavy-handed tactics.
Xinis, presiding over Abrego Garcia’s civil case since March, ordered both sides to court that day to hash out competing motions filed after his return to the U.S. in June. She rejected two government motions to dismiss the case, calling their argument that they couldn’t compel El Salvador to return him “meritless.”
Justice Department attorney Jonathan Guynn doubled down, insisting there’s “no intention to just put him in limbo in ICE custody” while his criminal case unfolds.
Instead, Guynn said, Abrego Garcia “will be removed, as would any other illegal alien in that process.” Such blunt language underscores the administration’s hardline stance, but it sidesteps the messy reality of a migrant caught in a legal ping-pong game.
Xinis, undeterred, asserted her authority. “No, I do have jurisdiction. That ship has sailed,” she snapped, dismissing the government’s claim that she no longer controls Abrego Garcia’s custodial status. Her insistence on oversight is a rare check on an administration that’s faced repeated judicial rebukes for violating migrants’ due process rights.
The judge’s skepticism wasn’t new. “Now I have real concerns — as if I haven’t for the last three months,” she remarked, her patience clearly waning.
She ordered the Trump administration to produce a Department of Homeland Security official to testify under oath on July 10 about their deportation plans, a move that signals she’s not letting this slide.
Outside the courtroom, the stakes were clear. Demonstrators waved signs and chanted, decrying what they see as the administration’s callous approach to migrants like Abrego Garcia. While their passion is undeniable, their protests often gloss over the complexities of balancing border security with fair treatment under the law.
The government’s admission of an “administrative error” feels hollow when the same system is gearing up to deport him again, this time to a third country.
Xinis described her efforts to pin down the government’s plans as “trying to nail Jell-O to a wall.” Her vivid metaphor captures the administration’s slippery approach, which is more focused on removing a dangerous illegal alien from the nation.
Yet, the judge’s dogged pursuit of answers risks turning the courtroom into a stage for political theater, where both sides dig in rather than seek solutions.
The administration’s timeline is aggressive. Lawyers conceded Abrego Garcia could be gone by July 16, barely a week after the hearing, even as his Tennessee case remains unresolved. President Trump’s April 14 meeting with El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office looms large over this case.
While no direct link to Abrego Garcia’s situation was mentioned, the timing suggests high-level talks on immigration enforcement. Such diplomacy is critical, but it can’t excuse sloppy execution at the ground level.
Xinis’s order for a DHS witness to testify on July 10 is a bold move, but it’s unclear if it will yield the clarity she seeks. “Given the series of unlawful actions here, I feel like it’s well within my authority to order this hearing,” she declared, signaling her intent to hold the government’s feet to the fire.
