Judge orders Justice Dept. to share steps taken to return Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador

Washington — A federal judge briefly extended a deadline Friday for the Justice Department to share any steps it’s taken or intends to take to return a Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to give her information about Kilmar Abrego Garcia after the Supreme Court on Thursday reaffirmed her directive for the federal government to “facilitate” his release from Salvadoran custody. 

Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its order, Xinis directed Homeland Security officials to provide Abrego Garcia’s physical location and custodian status, what steps they have taken to facilitate his immediate return to the U.S. and what further steps the government will take and when to help with his return. She initially gave the department a deadline of 9:30 a.m. Friday but extended it by two hours after the Justice Department filed a motion to ask for an extension until next week.

Xinis also scheduled a hearing in the case for Friday afternoon.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys opposed the government’s motion and accused the Justice Department of continuing “to delay, obfuscate, and flout court orders, while a man’s life and safety is at risk.”

Abrego Garcia, who lives in Maryland with his wife and children, was arrested and removed to El Salvador last month after Trump administration officials accused him of having ties to the MS-13 gang.  His lawyers said he has no affiliation with MS-13, and has never been charged or convicted of any criminal offenses in the U.S. or El Salvador.

The 29-year-old is being confined at the notorious Salvadoran prison known as CECOT, along with other migrants sent there by the administration as part of an agreement with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele. Under the deal, the U.S. government is paying the Salvadoran government $6 million to hold U.S. detainees.

But Abrego Garica’s case emerged as a flashpoint in President Trump’s immigration crackdown after a U.S. immigration official acknowledged in a court filing that his removal to El Salvador was an “administrative error” and “oversight.” 

In 2019, an immigration judge granted Abrego Garcia relief known as withholding of removal, which forbids the government from returning him to his home country of El Salvador because he is more likely than not to face persecution from local gangs, according to court records.

While the Trump administration admitted the error in sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, it has argued that the district court has no jurisdiction over the Salvadoran government and therefore cannot force it to release Abrego Garcia from its prison. Justice Department lawyers have said that the Salvadoran government has custody of Abrego Garcia, so he cannot be returned to the U.S. unless it releases him.

Abrego Garcia and his wife filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Maryland following his arrest and removal, alleging it violated federal immigration law. They sought an order requiring his return to U.S. custody.

Xinis granted that request last week following a hearing and directed the government to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. no later than 11:59 p.m. Monday. The dispute ended up before the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice John Roberts put that deadline on hold to allow the high court more time to consider the matter.

Then, on Thursday, the Supreme Court unanimously agreed that the Trump administration had to “facilitate” the release of Abrego Garcia from Salvadoran custody and “ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador” — to provide Abrego Garcia with due process of law.

But the Supreme Court also directed the district court to clarify its order, and specifically the directive that the government “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return. 

“The district court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs,” the court said. “For its part, the government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”