Judge Suggests Potential Contempt Charges in Case of Man Wrongly Deported to El Salvador

GREENBELT, Md.—On April 15, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis mandated two weeks of expedited discovery, which includes taking depositions from government officials and submitting document requests, to ascertain if the Trump administration fulfilled her order to aid in the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant who was erroneously deported to El Salvador the previous month.

Judge Xinis issued her directive following a hearing in Maryland, where demonstrators were visible outside the Greenbelt courthouse, holding signs that denounced the administration while supporting Abrego Garcia.

During the hearing, which had its moments of tension, Xinis engaged in a back-and-forth discussion with Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney Drew Ensign about the appropriate way to advance the case. Ensign argued that discovery was unnecessary and suggested that Xinis should concentrate on the legal interpretation of the term “facilitate” and its implications for the administration’s adherence to her order.

Echoing comments made by Attorney General Pam Bondi in the Oval Office earlier that week, Ensign stated that in the context of immigration, “facilitate” referred to the removal of domestic barriers to Abrego Garcia’s return.

Xinis countered that Ensign’s interpretation contradicted the word’s clear meaning. On April 9, the Supreme Court issued an order affirming Xinis’s right to demand the facilitation of Abrego Garcia’s return, stating that it was necessary “to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

Xinis cited that section of the opinion during her discussion with Ensign. When Ensign requested a stay of her decision pending appeal, Xinis responded that there was “nothing in my view to appeal” and emphasized that the Supreme Court had “spoken.” In her written order, she asserted that “facilitating the return of those wrongly deported can and has included more extensive governmental efforts.”

The administration has stated that Abrego Garcia was deported due to an administrative mistake.

In her written order, Xinis noted that Abrego Garcia appeared to be “inexplicably detained in CECOT,” a high-security prison in El Salvador housing violent gang members. She has been pursuing information regarding the actions the government has taken and will take in response to her prior order.

While refraining from mandating any specific actions by the federal government, she expressed her intent to proceed with discovery to ascertain if the government had complied with her directive for facilitation.

She also indicated she was contemplating potential contempt charges against the administration, as she sought more information on whether it had acted in bad faith in relation to her order.

This hearing occurred after a meeting in the Oval Office where Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele declared he would not return Abrego Garcia to the United States.

On April 12, Abrego Garcia’s legal team filed a motion that included multiple requests, such as expedited discovery and a court order for specific actions to facilitate their client’s return. Xinis, however, refrained from ruling on the latter in her written order. More specifically, his legal team requested the court to mandate the government to provide air transportation for Abrego Garcia, as well as parole, and to instruct its agents and contractors to release him from custody in El Salvador.

Right before the April 15 hearing, the Trump administration submitted a declaration from Joseph Mazzara, the acting general counsel for the Department of Homeland Security, stating that “DHS does not have authority to forcibly extract an alien from domestic custody of a foreign sovereign nation.”

Mazzara, who was present in court, also stated that because MS-13 is classified as a foreign terrorist organization, Abrego Garcia is no longer eligible for withholding from removal. An immigration judge previously granted him withholding from removal to El Salvador in 2019.

Beyond Mazzara, Xinis’s order named three additional officials—Robert Cerna, ICE Acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations, State Department official Michael Kozak, and another ICE official, Evan Katz—as individuals whom the plaintiffs may depose by April 23. The order also allowed for two more depositions.

During the hearing, Xinis cautioned Ensign against “gamesmanship or grandstanding” in the discovery process, asserting that there would be “no tolerance” for such conduct. She made it clear that there were no business hours in this case, indicating her willingness to work weekends and outside traditional hours. Xinis stated that the record before her did not provide any evidence that the administration had complied with her order.

“I’ve received very little information of any value,” she remarked.

Ensign referenced statements made by Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele in the Oval Office, but Xinis maintained that those remarks were not relevant to the court proceedings.

This case has turned into yet another point of contention between the administration and the judiciary, particularly concerning the separation of powers between the executive and the judicial branches. Abrego Garcia was deported last month as part of a group of flights scheduled for the day of a hearing regarding Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to deport members of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang.

Similar to Xinis’s case, that situation also saw the executive branch suggesting that the judiciary was overstepping its authority. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s rulings to block the administration were ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court, but he too considered the possibility of contempt due to potential noncompliance by the administration.

On April 10, the administration asserted its prerogative to manage foreign affairs and characterized Xinis’s demands for information about Abrego Garcia and the administration’s compliance steps as unreasonable.

“It is unreasonable and impractical for Defendants to disclose potential steps before those steps are reviewed, agreed upon, and vetted,” DOJ stated in a filing. “Foreign affairs cannot function on judicial timelines, partly because they involve sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review.”