GREENBELT, Maryland, April 15 – In a dramatic escalation of a high-stakes legal confrontation, a federal judge has ordered Trump administration officials to provide sworn testimony and key documents concerning their actions in a deportation case that has drawn widespread legal and political scrutiny. The case centers on Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man deported to El Salvador despite a court order that was supposed to protect him from removal.
Judge Takes Strong Stance Against Government Silence
U.S District Judge Paula Xinis, presiding over the case in Maryland, made clear during a courtroom hearing that she will no longer accept vague updates or what she described as empty assurances from the government. Though she refrained from immediately holding the administration in contempt, Xinis insisted that sworn depositions and internal records would now be necessary to determine whether her order to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return had been ignored.
The judge firmly stated that any attempts at manipulation or showboating would not be accepted. She emphasized that, based on the evidence presented so far, there has been absolutely no action taken none at all.
Xinis, who was appointed under the Obama administration, appeared visibly frustrated at what she considered a lack of serious effort by officials to comply with her directive.
Deportation Despite Legal Protection
Abrego Garcia was deported on March 15, even though he had received a judicial order granting him temporary protection from removal to El Salvador. His deportation has become symbolic of a growing concern among legal observers and human rights advocates: that the federal government under former President Donald Trump may have crossed a line in disregarding the judiciary.
Although Judge Xinis has so far stopped short of ordering the administration to directly petition the Salvadoran government for Garcia’s return, she called the administration’s reluctance to make that request “stunning.”
She clarified that she was not issuing a directive to take that specific action. “I don’t know if I’ll ever be there,” suggesting that while she recognizes limitations on court authority in foreign policy, she remains alarmed at the apparent lack of action.
Administration Accused of Undermining Judicial Authority
This incident is not isolated. It reflects a broader pattern of tensions between the judiciary and the Trump administration, with some accusing the former president of treating court orders as optional when they conflict with his immigration agenda.
During his presidency, Trump repeatedly clashed with the judicial branch, asserting that courts had overstepped their role by interfering in matters he claimed were within the sole authority of the executive branch — especially regarding immigration and foreign relations.
In this particular case, officials have argued that the court cannot compel them to negotiate with a foreign government. Nevertheless, Judge Xinis insists that the administration must show a good-faith effort to follow her directives and that dismissing the order entirely is unacceptable.
Legal Interpretation and Court Frustration
Government lawyer Drew Ensign told the court that officials interpreted the judge’s order to “facilitate” Garcia’s return as meaning that U.S agencies should eliminate domestic barriers that might prevent his reentry — not necessarily that they must work with El Salvador to secure his return.
Ensign added that the government had done its part by submitting a court filing stating that if Garcia presented himself at a U.S port of entry or embassy, he would be allowed to enter though he would be immediately taken into custody upon arrival.
Judge Xinis, however, firmly rejected that argument, stating the interpretation of “facilitate” offered by the administration was inconsistent with its plain meaning. “Facilitate means you make it happen not wait for it to happen,” she clarified.
Deposition Deadline Set
In a significant move, Xinis ordered four senior officials from the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) who had already submitted affidavits to sit for depositions no later than April 23. Their testimony under oath is expected to provide clarity on what actions, if any, were taken to rectify the wrongful deportation.
The judge acknowledged that certain legal privileges, including attorney-client confidentiality, may limit some of the answers officials can provide. Nevertheless, she made it clear that transparency and accountability were now mandatory.
Political Dimensions and Public Outcry
The case has also attracted public attention and political pressure. Outside the courtroom, protestors and supporters of Abrego Garcia gathered, calling for immediate action. His wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, made a heartfelt appeal to both the U.S and Salvadoran governments, urging them to stop using her husband’s life as a political pawn.
Fighting back tears, she appealed to both the Trump and Bukele administrations, urging them to end what she described as political maneuvering at the expense of Kilmar’s life, as she spoke before a group of protesters.
High-Level Diplomacy and Broader Implications
In a related development, U.S Senator Chris Van Hollen announced that he would be traveling to El Salvador to personally inquire about Garcia’s condition and advocate for his return. The senator emphasized that protecting constitutional rights and ensuring the government abides by judicial decisions should not be controversial — it is a matter of basic accountability.
Meanwhile, El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele told reporters during a recent White House visit that he did not have the authority to return Garcia. Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed the sentiment that foreign policy is a presidential prerogative, not a matter for the courts.
A Test of Judicial Authority in Immigration Law
Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s situation is part of a growing list of immigration enforcement controversies under Trump’s tenure, where critics argue the administration pushed legal boundaries and tested the limits of executive power. Garcia’s deportation under the Alien Enemies Act — a law dating back to 1798 and historically used only during wartime — further complicates the case.
Several courts have since blocked similar deportations under that act, and other students and legal immigrants have found themselves in jeopardy over their political beliefs or associations.
Judge Xinis’ latest order could mark a turning point in this unfolding legal drama. Her insistence on transparency and adherence to judicial authority may influence how future administrations handle court mandates particularly in politically sensitive matters involving immigration and international relations.