A federal judge on Wednesday ordered the release of sealed records and authorized a potential sanctions motion against the in the case of , a deported Salvadoran national whose disputed removal from the United States has become a flash point in a broader legal battle over immigration enforcement and court defiance.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis granted a request by a coalition of major news organizations to and a partially redacted transcript from an April 30 hearing. In a separate order, Xinis approved a request from Abrego Garcia’s legal team to , which is due June 11 -- a move that opens the door for plaintiffs to pursue formal penalties if the administration is found to have acted in bad faith or knowingly defied court orders.
The two rulings mark a sharp escalation in a months-long legal fight over whether federal officials have complied with orders to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. following his March deportation to — an act the administration has since admitted was an error due to , which meant Abrego Garcia could not be deported to his home country.
The media coalition, which includes outlets such as Fox News, NBC, the New York Times, and NPR, argued the public has a right to access court records in a case involving potential violations of constitutional protections and international diplomacy. Xinis agreed, writing that the public “enjoys a presumptive right to access court records, overcome only when outweighed by competing interests,” and that such access is essential to maintain the “trustworthiness of the judicial process.”
The records unsealed on Wednesday included a that shed additional light on the administration’s legal arguments and diplomatic efforts. The State Department has been engaged in “appropriate diplomatic discussions” with Salvadoran officials, the filing noted. But Trump administration lawyers argued they see a distinction between "facilitating" Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. and securing his release from Salvadoran custody. Officials say the latter falls outside U.S. authority.
According to the filing, the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, William Duncan, has had direct contact with Salvadoran officials, including organizing a meeting between Abrego Garcia and (D-MD) in April. Salvadoran officials later confirmed Abrego Garcia was moved from the notorious CECOT prison to a lower-security facility in Santa Ana and remains in “excellent health.”
The government also clarified that no U.S. funds have been used to detain Abrego Garcia or other Salvadoran nationals. While approximately $6 million in U.S. funds was made available to El Salvador for law enforcement, the aid was designated specifically for detaining a group of Venezuelans identified as foreign terrorists.
Justice Department lawyers have contended Abrego Garcia's removal was an "administrative error" because of a narrow withholding of removal order from an immigration judge in 2019, which deemed his fear of returning to the country based on rival gang concerns constituted a credible concern. However, the U.S. made clear that even if he was returned to the U.S., the government would either return him to a third country "or seek to terminate his withholding of removal because of his membership in MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and remove him to El Salvador."
Trump officials maintain that Abrego Garcia is affiliated with the MS-13 gang, an allegation previously accepted by an immigration judge. While he has never been charged with a crime in either the U.S. or El Salvador, he was pulled over during a traffic stop in Tennessee in 2022 for speeding, where officers at the time suspected his involvement in human trafficking, to the Department of Homeland Security. The April 30 transcript has not yet been made available on the court's docket.
The Trump administration is now seeking to dismiss Abrego Garcia’s lawsuit, arguing the government is under no continuing obligation to facilitate his return. Xinis could soon rule on this motion.
The legal standoff has frustrated Xinis, who previously chastised the administration for “vague, evasive, and incomplete” discovery responses that demonstrated a “willful and bad faith refusal to comply.”
While the D.C. District Court has , it remains unclear whether Xinis plans to follow suit.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis granted a request by a coalition of major news organizations to and a partially redacted transcript from an April 30 hearing. In a separate order, Xinis approved a request from Abrego Garcia’s legal team to , which is due June 11 -- a move that opens the door for plaintiffs to pursue formal penalties if the administration is found to have acted in bad faith or knowingly defied court orders.
The two rulings mark a sharp escalation in a months-long legal fight over whether federal officials have complied with orders to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. following his March deportation to — an act the administration has since admitted was an error due to , which meant Abrego Garcia could not be deported to his home country.
The media coalition, which includes outlets such as Fox News, NBC, the New York Times, and NPR, argued the public has a right to access court records in a case involving potential violations of constitutional protections and international diplomacy. Xinis agreed, writing that the public “enjoys a presumptive right to access court records, overcome only when outweighed by competing interests,” and that such access is essential to maintain the “trustworthiness of the judicial process.”
The records unsealed on Wednesday included a that shed additional light on the administration’s legal arguments and diplomatic efforts. The State Department has been engaged in “appropriate diplomatic discussions” with Salvadoran officials, the filing noted. But Trump administration lawyers argued they see a distinction between "facilitating" Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. and securing his release from Salvadoran custody. Officials say the latter falls outside U.S. authority.
According to the filing, the U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador, William Duncan, has had direct contact with Salvadoran officials, including organizing a meeting between Abrego Garcia and (D-MD) in April. Salvadoran officials later confirmed Abrego Garcia was moved from the notorious CECOT prison to a lower-security facility in Santa Ana and remains in “excellent health.”
The government also clarified that no U.S. funds have been used to detain Abrego Garcia or other Salvadoran nationals. While approximately $6 million in U.S. funds was made available to El Salvador for law enforcement, the aid was designated specifically for detaining a group of Venezuelans identified as foreign terrorists.
Justice Department lawyers have contended Abrego Garcia's removal was an "administrative error" because of a narrow withholding of removal order from an immigration judge in 2019, which deemed his fear of returning to the country based on rival gang concerns constituted a credible concern. However, the U.S. made clear that even if he was returned to the U.S., the government would either return him to a third country "or seek to terminate his withholding of removal because of his membership in MS-13, a designated foreign terrorist organization, and remove him to El Salvador."
Trump officials maintain that Abrego Garcia is affiliated with the MS-13 gang, an allegation previously accepted by an immigration judge. While he has never been charged with a crime in either the U.S. or El Salvador, he was pulled over during a traffic stop in Tennessee in 2022 for speeding, where officers at the time suspected his involvement in human trafficking, to the Department of Homeland Security. The April 30 transcript has not yet been made available on the court's docket.
The Trump administration is now seeking to dismiss Abrego Garcia’s lawsuit, arguing the government is under no continuing obligation to facilitate his return. Xinis could soon rule on this motion.
The legal standoff has frustrated Xinis, who previously chastised the administration for “vague, evasive, and incomplete” discovery responses that demonstrated a “willful and bad faith refusal to comply.”
While the D.C. District Court has , it remains unclear whether Xinis plans to follow suit.
