Federal Judge Challenges Trump Governance’s Actions in Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case
On May 17, 2025, a federal judge expressed significant frustration with the trump administration’s handling of the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case. The judge is seeking answers regarding the government’s efforts to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return from El Salvador and is pushing back on what she perceives as obstruction.
judge Demands Clarity in Deportation Case
Us District Judge Paula Xinis held a hearing in Greenbelt, Maryland, a month after allowing expedited fact-finding in the case. The goal was to ascertain what steps officials were taking to comply with her directive to bring abrego Garcia back to the United States.
Though, the justice Department and other administration officials have reportedly stonewalled these efforts. This resistance includes invoking privileges, such as state secrets, to avoid disclosing written evidence and preventing officials from answering questions under oath from Abrego Garcia’s legal team.
Skepticism Over State Secrets Claim
Judge Xinis appeared especially skeptical of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s declaration, which was intended to justify the state secrets claim. She indicated the declaration lacked sufficient detail to support the invocation of this privilege.
“Where I am right now is this affidavit is sufficiently unclear,” Xinis told a DOJ attorney. “This is basically ‘take my word for it.’ And I’m not saying at the end of the day you won’t be able to make the privilege. What I’m saying is there’s not enough there there.”
The judge further emphasized the need for the Executive Branch to provide more substantial evidence supporting the privilege claim.
Did You Know? The state secrets privilege has been used in numerous cases throughout U.S. history, often sparking debates about government transparency versus national security. In 2023, there were 150+ invocation of the state secrets privilege across various federal courts.
Order to Unseal and Update Rubio’s Declaration
Following the hearing, Judge Xinis ordered that Rubio’s declaration be unsealed and updated with additional details to justify the privilege invocation. She also granted Abrego Garcia’s attorneys permission to depose additional Trump administration officials.
Legal Precedents and Judicial Review
While courts have historically acknowledged the federal government’s authority to protect classified data, Supreme Court precedent mandates that judges assess the validity of privilege claims. This ensures that the privilege is appropriately invoked and not used to shield information improperly.
The Justice Department has argued that Rubio’s declaration explained that disclosing the requested information coudl harm U.S. foreign relations and national security. According to them, it might very well be seen as a breach of trust, discouraging cooperation from El Salvador and other foreign states.
Clash Over Adequacy of Justification
During the hearing, DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn insisted that the Rubio declaration was adequate.
“I think there’s a lot more meat on the bone than you’re giving this declaration credit for,” he told the judge.
Judge Xinis remained unconvinced, describing the filing as “very, very general” and stressing her need to review substantive evidence.
Pro Tip: When dealing with legal matters involving government agencies, it’s crucial to document every interaction and request detailed justifications for any claims of privilege or confidentiality. this will help build a stronger case and ensure accountability.
Concerns Over DHS Involvement
Judge Xinis also questioned why the declaration came from Secretary Rubio, as the officials being deposed work for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). She rejected the argument that Rubio’s declaration covered DHS officials or that a declaration from DHS Secretary Kristi noem in a separate case could suffice.
“I’m really quite stunned,” she said.”Get an affidavit or not. Right now, you have no (state secrets) privilege” over the three officials. She indicated she woudl likely allow the Justice Department to submit a separate declaration for the DHS officials, subject to similar scrutiny.
Insisting on Expedited Action
Judge xinis emphasized that any additional submissions must be made without delay, making it clear that lengthy extensions would not be tolerated.
“In this court, it won’t take months,” she sternly told Guynn.
Potential for Confidential Review
Judge Xinis may opt to conduct an “in camera” review, a confidential examination of the information in question, to determine the validity of the privilege invocation.
Government’s Claims of Compliance
At one point, Guynn mentioned that the administration had received an update from El Salvador regarding Abrego Garcia’s condition, claiming he had gained weight-an apparent attempt to refute claims of mistreatment in prison.
Guynn maintained that the government had complied with Xinis’ orders, a claim that Abrego Garcia’s attorney vehemently disputed.
Defense Attorney’s Rebuttal
Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Andrew Rossman, expressed disbelief at the government’s assertions. He argued against granting the government additional time to submit further declarations, citing their previous submissions in the DC case.
“My head is spinning, your honor, from what I just heard from the government,” rossman said.
“I cannot in good conscience – with my duties to my clients – consent to giving them a second bite at the apple,” he told Xinis.
Key Figures in the Case
| Name | Role | Key Action/Statement |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Paula Xinis | Us District Judge | Demanding transparency,skeptical of state secrets claim,ordering additional information. |
| Marco Rubio | Secretary of State | Provided declaration to justify state secrets claim (deemed insufficient by the judge). |
| Jonathan Guynn | DOJ Attorney | Arguing for the adequacy of the Rubio declaration and government compliance. |
| Andrew Rossman | Attorney for Abrego Garcia | Disputing government compliance, opposing additional time for submissions. |
| Kilmar Abrego Garcia | Subject of the case | Seeking return to the United States from El Salvador. |
Frequently Asked Questions
What do you think about the judge’s skepticism regarding the state secrets claim? How can the balance between national security and government transparency be better managed in such cases?
