Judge erupts over wrongful deportation—Trump officials to testify as Kilmar Garcia languishes in mega-prison

Why is a U.S. judge ordering sworn testimony over Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation?

A federal judge has sharply criticized the Department of Justice over the continued detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March 2025 under the Trump administration. Despite a court ruling in 2019 granting him protection from removal due to credible fears of persecution, Abrego Garcia was forcibly returned and is now entering his second month inside El Salvador’s infamous Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a facility notorious for its extreme security protocols and controversial treatment of detainees.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis has now ordered senior DOJ officials to testify under oath, citing the administration’s failure to take meaningful action in facilitating Garcia’s return. Her directive reflects intensifying judicial frustration over what she described as systemic inaction, raising serious constitutional concerns regarding due process, executive accountability, and the enforceability of court orders in immigration cases.

How was Kilmar Abrego Garcia wrongfully deported despite legal protections?

Abrego Garcia, a native of El Salvador who had lived in the U.S. for years, was granted protection from deportation in 2019 after he demonstrated credible fear of returning to his home country. The court order was grounded in concerns that he could face persecution due to past threats and deteriorating security conditions in El Salvador.

Despite this protection, Garcia was removed from the country during a March 2025 deportation operation led by immigration authorities under the Trump administration. Reports indicate that a series of administrative errors—compounded by inter-agency communication failures—led to the unlawful deportation of individuals who had pending asylum cases, stay orders, or permanent residency claims. Garcia’s case emerged as the most high-profile example of the fallout from this crackdown, triggering bipartisan criticism and renewed legal scrutiny.

Legal analysts and immigration advocates argue that the operation violated not only court orders but also the government’s constitutional obligations under the Fifth Amendment to ensure due process for all individuals in removal proceedings.

Why did Judge Paula Xinis demand sworn DOJ testimony?

Judge Xinis has taken the rare step of compelling sworn testimony from officials at the Department of Justice. Her order follows a series of government filings that, in her view, failed to demonstrate any substantive attempt to repatriate Abrego Garcia or comply with prior court rulings.

In her written statements, Xinis criticized the DOJ’s interpretation of its legal responsibilities, stating that the agency’s passive outreach to Salvadoran authorities did not satisfy the constitutional burden to act on a wrongful deportation. She emphasized that issuing press statements or relying on foreign goodwill does not meet the court’s standard for rectifying a legal violation.

Her order represents a broader challenge to what many see as growing executive defiance toward judicial mandates, particularly in the immigration space. The requirement for sworn testimony is designed to hold decision-makers directly accountable and uncover where, and how, institutional failures occurred.

What is Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s status in El Salvador’s CECOT prison?

Garcia is currently held at El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT, a maximum-security complex inaugurated in 2023 by President Nayib Bukele. Built to house suspected gang members and dangerous offenders, the facility has been the subject of international criticism, with human rights organizations highlighting inhumane conditions, overcrowding, and arbitrary detention practices.

El Salvador’s government has so far refused to release Garcia, with President Bukele labeling him a “terrorist” despite no public evidence linking him to violent crime or organized groups. This political stance has further complicated U.S. efforts to negotiate his return.

Garcia’s lawyers have stated that he is being held without access to legal counsel and under conditions that would likely qualify as cruel or degrading under international law. His situation has become emblematic of the risks faced by deportees returning to authoritarian regimes with broad discretionary powers over incarceration.

What has been the U.S. government’s response to the court’s demands?

The Trump administration, now in its second term following the January 2025 inauguration, has defended its handling of the case by citing jurisdictional limits and asserting that foreign policy decisions fall within executive authority. DOJ lawyers argued in court filings that the government cannot force a sovereign nation like El Salvador to release a detained individual.

However, Judge Xinis dismissed this defense, stating that the government is not relieved of its legal obligations simply because compliance is diplomatically challenging. Her interpretation aligns with judicial precedent that compels the executive to take proactive, good-faith steps when its actions violate constitutional protections.

Observers note that while the DOJ has acknowledged the deportation as a mistake, its failure to follow up with credible repatriation efforts suggests institutional reluctance to engage in a politically charged resolution—particularly one that might require confronting a foreign government or reversing controversial enforcement operations.

How are lawmakers and advocacy groups responding to the case?

The case has prompted strong responses from both lawmakers and civil rights organizations. Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland has emerged as a vocal advocate for Garcia’s return. He traveled to El Salvador earlier this month in a bid to visit Garcia and assess his well-being, but was denied access by Salvadoran authorities.

Van Hollen and other Democratic lawmakers are now pressuring the Trump administration to adopt a more assertive diplomatic strategy and to prioritize cases involving wrongful deportation. Several congressional offices have also called for a broader investigation into how Garcia’s removal was allowed to proceed despite an active court order barring it.

Human rights organizations including Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union have also weighed in, calling for independent oversight of deportation procedures and greater transparency in how court orders are communicated across immigration enforcement agencies.

What does this mean for U.S. immigration law and due process?

The Garcia case represents a flashpoint in the ongoing struggle over due process in U.S. immigration enforcement. It raises profound questions about whether federal courts can effectively check executive overreach when constitutional rights are at stake.

Legal experts argue that unless robust enforcement mechanisms are built into judicial orders, the risk of executive branch noncompliance will grow—particularly in politically sensitive areas like immigration and national security. Garcia’s continued detention in El Salvador underscores this danger, showing how bureaucratic errors and political inertia can leave individuals stranded in life-threatening conditions.

For now, the court’s demand for sworn testimony may open the door to further legal remedies, including potential contempt findings or sanctions against federal agencies. The outcome could have implications far beyond Garcia’s case, potentially shaping how wrongful deportation claims are litigated and enforced in the future.

As the Trump administration faces mounting pressure to act, the case is becoming a key test of how U.S. institutions respond when due process protections are violated by their own hand—and whether justice delayed must also mean justice denied.