A federal judge told the Trump administration Friday that its explanation for invoking the state secrets privilege in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case is inadequate, describing the government’s reasoning for withholding information as “take my word for it.”
Trump administration attorneys have argued that releasing details in open court — or even to the judge in private – about returning Abrego Garcia to the United States would jeopardize national security.
For example, they said it would reveal confidential negotiations with foreign countries.
But U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland said she was at a loss for how she could independently determine the nature of the government’s concerns with the information it provided.
“There’s simply no details,” she said.
“This is basically ‘take my word for it.’”
Jonathan Guynn, a Justice Department attorney, disagreed that the explanation was inadequate.
“We think we’ve provided significant information,” he said.
The focus of Friday’s hearing was primarily on the Trump administration’s desire to invoke the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine that is more often used in cases involving the military and spy agencies.
But how Xinis ultimately rules could impact the central question looming over the case: Has the Trump administration followed her order to bring back Abrego Garcia?
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys argued that the Trump administration has done nothing to return the Maryland construction worker.
They say the government is invoking the privilege to hide behind the misconduct of mistakenly deporting him to El Salvador and refusing to bring him back.
“The government is delaying for delay’s sake at the expense of someone who was wrongly removed from this country,” said Andrew Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia.
Rossman said he isn’t arguing that there are no conceivable state secrets at play.
“The question is: ‘What have you actually done?’” Rossman said.
“I suspect there are no steps, and nothing has happened.”
He urged Xinis to reject the notion that the government “can throw a shroud of state secrets” over her order and not comply with it, adding that “simply saying, ‘national security,’ is not sufficient.”
Xinis appeared skeptical of the government’s position, particularly after Guynn said there was no need for the judge to review the information the Trump administration deems secret.
“He has been wrongly removed,” Xinis responded.
“How is it not central to understand what, if anything, you’ve done to return him? How is it not a need?”
Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have also cited recent pronouncements by President Donald Trump and others that Abrego Garcia isn’t coming back.
For example, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said “there is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again.”
Guynn, the Justice Department attorney, told the judge that such statements are not inconsistent with the government’s legal arguments when “read with the appropriate nuance.”
Guynn suggested the meaning was that, “He’ll never walk free in the United States.”
Xinis said she reads Noem’s comments as a sign that the government won’t take steps to facilitate his return.
“That’s about as clear as it can get,” the judge said.
“I disagree,” Guynn said, eliciting laughter in the courtroom.
Guynn also denied any wrongdoing by the administration.
“The removal of Mr. Abrego Garcia was inadvertent error,” he said.
“We don’t concede that is misconduct by the government.”
A portion of Friday’s hearing was closed to the public, during which Xinis gave the government a week to provide more information for its state secrets claim, according to Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney for Abrego Garcia.
The Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March.
The expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge’s order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he faced likely persecution by a local gang that had terrorized his family.
Abrego Garcia’s American wife sued, and Xinis ordered his return on April 4.
The Supreme Court ruled on April 10 that the administration must work to bring him back.
Xinis later lambasted the administration for failing to explain what it has done to retrieve him and instructed the government to provide documents and testimony showing what it has done, if anything, to comply.
Read the full article here
