Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have petitioned a federal judge in Tennessee for a gag order to restrict top Trump officials from making remarks that could prejudice the jury in their client’s case. The motion, filed on Thursday, comes after the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other administration officials have publicly labeled Abrego Garcia as a gang member, human trafficker, and criminal. The attorneys argue that these statements create a substantial risk of prejudicing the jury against their client, who faces human smuggling charges. The motion marks the second time the legal team has requested such an order, following a previous ruling from the judge that warned the government to follow standard prosecution procedures and avoid prejudicial comments outside of court.
Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, was initially deported to El Salvador by the Trump administration in March, despite a Supreme Court order that demanded he be returned to the United States. However, the Department of Justice reversed course in June, bringing an indictment against Abrego Garcia while bringing him back to the U.S. He was released from jail last week but was immediately re-detained by immigration authorities in Maryland, a decision the attorneys have argued could be politically motivated. Meanwhile, a separate civil case in Maryland has blocked the government’s attempt to deport Abrego Garcia until at least October, raising questions about the potential intersection of legal and political pressures in the case.
The legal team has accused the Trump administration of intensifying its attacks on their client since his release, with officials like Tom Homan, the former border czar, making increasingly hostile public comments. Homan recently appeared on Fox News and described Abrego Garcia as a ‘gang member, terrorist, wife beater, pedophile, human trafficker, and alien smuggler,’ despite Abrego Garcia denying all allegations. The attorneys emphasize that the case has already drawn significant judicial attention and that the continued public attacks could severely impact the fair administration of justice. The case is expected to remain in the spotlight, with further developments anticipated as the legal battle continues.