A tense courtroom in Maryland became the focal point of a desperate legal battle Thursday, as lawyers fought to prevent the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant, to Liberia. The case, stretching over nine months, has ignited international scrutiny and consumed the attention of legal experts.
The core of the dispute isn’t whether Abrego Garcia should be deported, but *if* a final deportation order even exists. Judge Paula Xinis repeatedly pressed the Justice Department to produce the crucial document, a notice of removal, without which she indicated Abrego Garcia is entitled to immediate relief under Supreme Court rulings.
Frustration mounted as the hearing progressed, with Judge Xinis expressing exasperation at the lack of clarity. “Today was a zero in my view,” she stated, highlighting the absence of satisfactory answers from the government’s legal team.
The government had previously attempted to deport Abrego Garcia to Eswatini, Uganda, and Ghana, all ending in failure. Their current plan hinges on Liberia, but the court is questioning the validity of even that arrangement, demanding evidence of firm commitments.
A particularly sharp exchange centered on Costa Rica, which had previously offered assurances of legal status for Abrego Garcia, avoiding his return to El Salvador. Judge Xinis challenged the Justice Department’s claim that this offer had been rescinded, demanding concrete proof and dismissing their explanation as potentially “empty word salad.”
The absence of a formal removal order could compel Judge Xinis to order Abrego Garcia’s release, citing a Supreme Court precedent that prevents indefinite detention after removal issues are settled. This would allow him to rejoin his brother and prepare for a crucial hearing in Tennessee regarding his criminal case.
The Justice Department argued that an immigration judge had “meant” to issue the order, a claim swiftly rejected by Judge Xinis. “This doesn’t look anything like a final order of removal,” she retorted, “It’s not even close.”
Judge Xinis closed the record, signaling this was the final hearing in the habeas case, and vowed a ruling in the coming days. She also expressed displeasure at the Justice Department’s failure to provide a knowledgeable witness who could explain the deportation plans to Liberia and the nature of Liberia’s assurances.
However, the judge conceded that the existence – or non-existence – of a final removal order may render further testimony irrelevant. If she finds no such order exists, the case, in her words, is “done.”
