NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Federal judges in Maryland and Tennessee are set to hear challenges regarding the treatment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man whose wrongful deportation to El Salvador ignited significant backlash against the immigration policies of former President Donald Trump.
In Maryland, Abrego Garcia's legal team is contesting the government's attempts to re-deport him to a third country after officials acknowledged that a prior order prevents his removal to El Salvador, his home country. Recently, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expressed intentions to deport him to Eswatini, a southern African country.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has mandated that government representatives testify about the progress made in executing Abrego Garcia's deportation to Eswatini or any alternative destination. His attorneys argue that the Trump administration is employing the immigration system as a means of retaliation following the embarrassment caused by his erroneous deportation.
Simultaneously, in Tennessee, similar claims have surfaced regarding human smuggling charges imposed on Abrego Garcia in June, coinciding with his return to the U.S. from El Salvador. The judicial proceedings in Tennessee have also raised concerns about the legality of these charges, suggesting they may be a direct retaliatory action due to Abrego Garcia winning a lawsuit against the Trump administration related to his deportation.
The smuggling allegations arise from a traffic stop that occurred in Tennessee in 2022. At that time, no charges were filed against him, and investigations did not commence until this year, following legal actions taken by Abrego Garcia's wife concerning his deportation. A hearing scheduled for Friday will ascertain what documents Abrego Garcia's attorneys can access through discovery to substantiate their claims of retaliation.
The Trump administration has actively engaged in a public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, frequently labeling him as a member of the notorious MS-13 gang, despite the absence of any criminal convictions against him. This narrative has been used to justify the government's stringent actions and to vilify Abrego Garcia in the court of public opinion.
As court hearings unfold in both Maryland and Tennessee, the legal strategies of Abrego Garcia's attorneys will be scrutinized, particularly regarding the alleged retaliatory intent behind the government's actions. The outcomes of these proceedings may have broader implications for the treatment of immigrants and the enforcement of immigration policies in the United States.
