A federal judge overseeing the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia reprimanded the Department of Justice (DOJ) for misrepresenting facts to the Fourth Circuit Court regarding his decision to block Garcia’s deportation. The controversy arose during a hearing that addressed whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) could lawfully re-detain Garcia following his release after the court ruled his prior detention unlawful.
Judge Paula Xinis challenged the DOJ’s claim that she had failed to make the necessary legal findings when issuing the injunction preventing Garcia’s removal. She explicitly read portions of the earlier hearing transcript in open court to demonstrate that her rulings included these findings. The DOJ lawyers acknowledged the discrepancy but attributed it to confusion over document filings and procedural errors by junior attorneys.
Garcia, who had been deported from Maryland to a high-security prison in El Salvador before being returned to the U.S., remains at the center of a protracted legal battle. The Trump administration seeks to deport him to Liberia, but Judge Xinis has blocked this removal multiple times, prompting the DOJ to appeal her rulings. The court has yet to resolve the latest procedural questions raised during the hearing.
The case has attracted attention not only because of the unusual circumstances surrounding Garcia’s detention and attempted removal but also due to tensions between the judiciary and executive branch over due process and deportation protocols. Judge Xinis' pointed criticism highlights ongoing friction with DOJ attorneys over adherence to procedural integrity and accurate representation in legal filings.