Judge Orders Justice Department to Prove They Tried to Bring Back Deported Migrant

In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has sternly rebuked the Justice Department, saying they “made no meaningful effort” to comply with an order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally protected Salvadoran man wrongly deported to El Salvador. The judge criticized the DOJ for relying on vague privilege claims and evasions instead of revealing concrete steps they had taken—or failed to take—to secure his return

Judge Xinis has granted the DOJ a tight deadline to submit daily sworn reports detailing his location, custody status in El Salvador’s high-security CECOT prison, and any actions to bring him home She demanded transparency, stating she has “no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding”

A Constitutional Clash Over Executive Power

This case has become a flashpoint. In April, the Supreme Court ruled the DOJ must “facilitate” Garcia’s return, but it also cautioned against infringing on diplomatic prerogatives. Despite that, the Justice Department has largely remained silent—prompting accusations of “bad faith” and judicial obstruction.

Appeals Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson even warned that the administration’s stance threatens the separation of powers and the rule of law, insisting facilitation is an active duty—not passive avoidance.

The Human Toll

Abrego Garcia, backed by a 2019 immigration judge’s finding that he faced gang persecution, has been held in one of El Salvador’s harshest prisons. He was deported by mistake in March and has endured weeks in custody since—a situation his wife and attorneys describe as a nightmare.

His legal team is now urging that government officials be held in contempt for ignoring court orders—and for endangering his life because of stalled legal maneuvers and domestic excuses.

What Comes Next

• Daily filings required: The DOJ must provide sworn, detailed reports each day.

• Possible contempt: The judge has warned she won’t hesitate to hold officials accountable.

• Diplomatic wrangle: The case raises urgent questions about the limits of judicial power in foreign affairs.

Why This Case Matters

This is more than a deportation gone wrong—it’s a test of whether courts can enforce their orders when they clash with executive claims of diplomatic immunity. The outcome could set a major precedent on how far judges can go in compelling proactive government action—especially when lives are at stake.