Judge Rejects Trump’s State Secrets Claim in Deportation \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge criticized the Trump administration for offering insufficient justification in invoking state secrets to withhold information about the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. The judge called their explanation vague and questioned the government’s efforts to comply with her order. The administration maintains Garcia won’t return to the U.S., despite a Supreme Court ruling.
Quick Looks
- Federal judge calls state secrets claim in Garcia case “inadequate.”
- Trump administration cited national security in refusing to disclose actions.
- Garcia was deported despite a 2019 order shielding him.
- Judge Paula Xinis questions what steps the government has taken.
- DOJ attorney says “more information” not necessary for judge’s review.
- Garcia’s lawyers argue the deportation was a cover-up of misconduct.
- Homeland Security Secretary said Garcia “isn’t coming back.”
- Courtroom laughter followed DOJ claim denying government misconduct.
- Judge gave the DOJ one week to provide clarity.
- Deportation allegedly based on uncharged MS-13 gang claims.
- Garcia’s wife sued; courts ordered his return in April.
- Appeals court backed Xinis after government’s noncompliance.
Deep Look
A legal showdown is escalating over the Trump administration’s controversial deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland construction worker sent back to El Salvador in violation of a court order. On Friday, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis sharply criticized the administration’s attempt to invoke the state secrets privilege, calling their justification inadequate and dismissively vague.
The judge’s frustration was clear as she rebuked Justice Department attorneys for failing to provide sufficient detail about why they were withholding information related to Garcia’s deportation. “This is basically ‘take my word for it,’” Judge Xinis said, expressing skepticism over the administration’s claim that disclosing information would threaten national security.
According to government lawyers, revealing details about Garcia’s potential return to the U.S.—even privately to the judge—would expose confidential negotiations with foreign governments. But Judge Xinis noted she could not independently evaluate those concerns due to the administration’s lack of specificity.
Jonathan Guynn, the Justice Department attorney defending the administration, disagreed with the judge’s characterization. “We think we’ve provided significant information,” he said. However, Guynn also stated that there was no need for the judge to review the information deemed secret, an assertion that triggered laughter from observers in the courtroom.
Judge Xinis fired back:
“He has been wrongly removed. How is it not central to understand what, if anything, you’ve done to return him?”
At the heart of Friday’s hearing was the Trump administration’s ongoing reliance on the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine traditionally reserved for cases involving sensitive military or intelligence matters. This time, it’s being used in an immigration dispute stemming from what the government now calls an “administrative error.”
Abrego Garcia’s deportation occurred in March, despite a 2019 ruling by an immigration judge that protected him from being returned to El Salvador, where he had previously been targeted by a local gang. The judge had determined that deportation would likely subject Garcia to persecution.
Garcia’s American wife filed a lawsuit demanding his return, and Judge Xinis ordered the government to facilitate it by April 4. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld her order on April 10, affirming that the administration must act. Since then, Xinis has repeatedly pressed the government for evidence of compliance—evidence it has yet to provide.
Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Andrew Rossman, accused the administration of hiding behind the state secrets claim to avoid accountability.
“The government is delaying for delay’s sake at the expense of someone who was wrongly removed,” Rossman said.
He emphasized that while he acknowledges some elements could justifiably be confidential, the government has not shown it has done anything to fulfill the court’s mandate.
“The question is: What have you actually done? I suspect there are no steps, and nothing has happened.”
Rossman warned against allowing the administration to “throw a shroud of state secrets” over a lawful order, adding that invoking “national security” without substance was “not sufficient.”
The government’s messaging has been inconsistent. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem publicly stated,
“There is no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be in the United States again.”
To that, Judge Xinis responded:
“That’s about as clear as it can get.”
Guynn disagreed and argued that such statements should be understood with “appropriate nuance.” He suggested the true meaning was that Garcia “would never walk free” in the U.S.—a distinction Xinis and others in the courtroom found unconvincing.
Garcia’s legal team has highlighted these public remarks as further evidence that the administration has no intention of complying with the court’s order. During Friday’s hearing, Xinis gave the Justice Department one week to submit additional information supporting its state secrets claim. Part of the session was held behind closed doors due to the nature of the arguments.
The underlying accusation that prompted the deportation was a 2019 claim by Maryland police that Abrego Garcia was affiliated with MS-13, a notorious gang. However, he was never charged with a crime, and the deportation occurred despite his legal protections. Garcia has consistently denied gang involvement, and his attorneys maintain that the allegation was baseless and unverified.
The Trump administration has since acknowledged the deportation was carried out in violation of federal court orders, labeling it an “administrative mistake.” Still, former President Donald Trump and several officials have continued to allege, without legal proceedings or evidence, that Garcia was involved in MS-13.
The case has now become a broader test of executive authority, transparency, and judicial oversight. With the judge demanding answers, and the administration clinging to secrecy, the fate of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—and the limits of government power—hangs in the balance.
Judge Rejects Trump’s Judge Rejects Trump’s
You must Register or Login to post a comment.