A federal judge addressed the Trump administration on Friday, expressing concern over their insufficient reasoning for invoking state secret privilege in the Kilmer Abrego Garcia case. He remarked that withholding information felt like “just taking my words.”
Attorneys representing the Trump administration allegedly disclosed details about Abrego Garcia’s potential return to the U.S. in public courts, which they argued could jeopardize sensitive negotiations with foreign nations.
Yet, U.S. District Judge Paula Sinis said she struggled to understand how the government’s concerns were justified based on the information she had received.
“There’s no details,” she stated. “It’s basically just ‘trust me.’”
Jonathan Ginn, a lawyer from the Justice Department, disagreed with the idea that the explanation was inadequate. “We’ve provided important information,” he insisted.
The hearing primarily focused on the Trump administration’s request for state secret privileges, a doctrine often invoked in cases involving military and intelligence operations.
But how could Judge Sinis’s comments ultimately impact the broader issues at play in this case? Was the administration actually intending to follow her directions to bring back Abrego Garcia?
Garcia’s legal team argued that the Trump administration has made no genuine effort to facilitate the return of construction workers from Maryland, alleging that the government is using privilege as a shield against accountability for mistakenly deporting him to El Salvador and refusing to rectify that mistake.
“The government is stalling, and it’s coming at the cost of those who were wrongfully removed,” said Andrew Rothman, Garcia’s attorney.
Rothman expressed that he wasn’t claiming there were no national security concerns he could imagine. “The real question is, ‘What actions have you actually taken?’” he pressed.
“There’s no progress, and I don’t see anything changing,” he added, urging Judge Sinis to dismiss the idea that the government could merely label something a national secret without justification. “Simply asserting ‘national security’ is not sufficient.”
Sinis appeared dubious about the government’s claims, especially after Ginn indicated he wouldn’t confirm information that the Trump administration deemed classified.
“So he was removed by mistake,” Sinis responded. “If that’s the case, how is that not central to understanding what needs to happen for his return?”
Garcia’s lawyers also highlighted recent statements indicating that President Trump and officials seem unwilling to facilitate his return. For example, Homeland Security Secretary Christi Noem indicated, “There’s no scenario where Abrego Garcia will be back in the U.S.”
Ginn countered that this statement didn’t contradict government legal positions when interpreted with the right nuances, implying that it meant “he will never walk freely in the United States.”
Judge Sinis interpreted Noem’s comments as a sign that the government was not inclined to pursue steps toward Garcia’s return.
“That’s as clear as it gets,” she remarked.
“I don’t agree,” Ginn responded, prompting laughter in the courtroom.
He further asserted there was no wrongdoing on the government’s part, claiming, “The removal of Abrego Garcia was an unfortunate error.”
Some portions of Friday’s hearings were reportedly closed to the public, during which Judge Sinis requested additional information regarding the state secret claims.
In March, Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, a move that contradicted a U.S. immigration judge’s 2019 order, which protected him from being sent back due to threats from local gangs.
Garcia’s American wife took legal action, leading Judge Sinis to order his return by April 4th. The Supreme Court upheld that decision on April 10, mandating the administration to work on his repatriation.
Ultimately, Sinis criticized the administration for its lack of clarity about its efforts to facilitate his return, instructing them to provide documentation and testimony outlining their actions in this matter.
