The Trump administration is facing new legal hurdles as federal judges in Tennessee and Maryland temporarily blocked its efforts to deport Salvadorian migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The administration, which has criticized the court rulings as ‘lawless and insane,’ remains focused on its stated goal of removing the migrant to a third country, such as Mexico or South Sudan. The decisions came swiftly, with three federal judges issuing orders within a 90-minute window, halting the administration’s plan to hand over Abrego Garcia to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immediate deportation.
Justice Department officials acknowledged the plan in court earlier this month, indicating that Abrego Garcia’s transfer from U.S. marshals to ICE would likely occur outside the federal prison where he is currently being held. These fears were further reinforced after senior Trump administration officials took to social media, accusing the courts of intervening improperly. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin vowed that Abrego Garcia would ‘never walk America’s streets again,’ despite the recent court rulings against the deportation plan.
The remarks have sparked concerns among immigration advocates and Abrego Garcia’s legal team. ‘We have heightened, ongoing concerns about the Trump administration’s compliance with any and all those involved,’ said Chris Newman, an attorney representing Abrego Garcia’s family, in an interview with Fox News Digital. Despite the legal victories for Abrego Garcia, such as his release from criminal custody pending trial and protections against unlawful removal, the case remains fraught with uncertainty.
Abrego Garcia’s case has become a focal point in the broader legal battle between the Trump administration and federal courts regarding immigration enforcement. While the Supreme Court has recently sided with the administration on several key issues, its potential intervention in this case remains uncertain. The courts in Tennessee and Maryland have issued temporary stays, and the case could be appealed to the conservative-majority U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which could potentially block the lower court orders.
Legal experts and advocates have expressed skepticism about the administration’s commitment to court rulings. ‘It’s now a matter of public record that their posture since the beginning is to say, ‘F— you’ to the courts,’ Newman said in an interview. The case underscores the administration’s ongoing conflict with judicial oversight and its efforts to enforce immigration policies against the backdrop of legal challenges and public scrutiny.