According to the Hill, A federal judge just tore into the Trump administration’s flimsy excuse for hiding documents in a messy deportation case. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, presiding in Greenbelt, Maryland, called out the Department of Justice for failing to justify its use of the state secrets privilege in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an unauthorized migrant mistakenly sent back to El Salvador. The courtroom showdown exposed the government’s shaky grip on transparency.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, deported despite a prior immigration ruling protecting him, sits at the heart of this legal firestorm. Nearly 15 years ago, he entered the U.S. illegally, and the Trump administration now labels him an MS-13 gang member—a claim his family fiercely denies. Last month, the Supreme Court ordered the administration to help bring him back, sparking a fierce battle over document disclosure.
Judge Xinis, an Obama appointee, didn’t mince words during Friday’s heated hearing. She slammed Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s declaration for lacking substance to support withholding documents on national security grounds. “This is basically take my word for it,” Xinis scoffed, signaling the DOJ’s excuse won’t cut it in her courtroom.
The judge demanded more evidence to back Rubio’s state secrets claim, refusing to let the government skate by. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Guynn tried to defend the declaration, insisting there’s “a lot more meat on the bone.” His bravado crumbled under Xinis’ scrutiny, proving actions speak louder than slick rhetoric.
The hearing turned into what Guynn called “hand-to-hand combat” over discovery disputes. Xinis ordered the administration to hand over documents and make four officials available for depositions to check compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling. So far, three depositions have yielded what Xinis called a “goose egg”—zero useful information.
Abrego Garcia’s legal team, led by Andrew Rossman, isn’t buying the government’s excuses. Rossman revealed the administration turned over 164 documents, but 132 were just photocopies of court filings and his own discovery requests. “They’ve told us nothing,” he fumed, highlighting the DOJ’s stonewalling tactics.
The Supreme Court’s directive to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return set the stage for this clash. Immigration authorities arrested him in mid-March and deported him to El Salvador, ignoring an immigration judge’s prior ruling. This blunder forced the administration into a corner, scrambling to justify its actions.
Xinis described the depositions as riddled with “I don’t knows,” frustrating efforts to uncover the truth. She quipped that her law clerks spent ages counting the non-answers, a jab at the government’s evasive playbook. Transparency, it seems, isn’t the DOJ’s strong suit.
Guynn claimed no documents are being withheld solely on state secrets grounds, pointing instead to the deliberative process privilege. This protects internal agency decision-making, but it’s a weak shield when the Supreme Court demands accountability. Guynn’s sidestepping only deepened suspicions of bureaucratic gamesmanship.
Despite the courtroom fireworks, all sides agreed some progress was made. Xinis seems inclined to let the government bolster Rubio’s declaration, though she’ll rule after a sealed hearing portion. Patience is wearing thin, especially for Abrego Garcia’s team, who want swift action.
Rossman urged Xinis to keep the case moving, warning against government delays. The judge’s cautious approach suggests she’s balancing fairness with her demand for clarity. Nobody said untangling this mess would be quick.
Guynn offered a small update: Abrego Garcia is reportedly healthy and gaining weight in El Salvador. It’s a faint silver lining in a case clouded by secrecy and mistrust. Still, it’s cold comfort when justice remains stalled.
Many details remain under seal, leaving the public in the dark about key aspects of the dispute. The Supreme Court foresaw this tug-of-war, as Guynn admitted, noting it “anticipated that we would have this discovery dispute.” Yet foresight doesn’t excuse the DOJ’s lackluster compliance.
Xinis’ sharp oversight signals she won’t let the administration hide behind vague privileges. Her insistence on hard evidence challenges the government to step up or face consequences. Turns out, “national security” isn’t a free pass to dodge accountability.
Friday’s hearing peeled back layers of a case that’s as much about government overreach as it is about one man’s fate. While Abrego Garcia waits in limbo, the fight for transparency rages on. In a system where trust is scarce, Xinis’ push for answers offers a rare glimmer of hope.
