This afternoon, my good friend and amazing legal journalist Adam Klasfeld joined us to discuss his view of the hearing in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s civil case from the courtroom in Greenbelt, Maryland, where Judge Paula Xinis held the hearing.
If you weren’t able to join us live, this is a great conversation to watch! Adam confirmed my sense from reading the transcript that the Judge wasn’t impressed by the government’s claim that deporting Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was just a mistake. At one point, the Judge characterized sending him to the notorious CECOT prison as an outrageous decision, without legal authority and said she thought the government’s reply was that it was a garden variety mistaken removal case. She accused the government of taking the position that it was no harm, no foul.
The Judge, like all of us, has read the proposed amended complaint that Mr. Abrego Gracia’s wife wants to file in this case (we read excerpts from it in this edition of the newsletter last week), which details the torture he endured. She wasn’t having any of it. The government’s response? DOJ lawyer Bridget O’Hickey told the Judge that their position was that he’d been returned and no further action was necessary. It was just an isolated error, she claimed.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers were quick to point out that, despite the claim that the deportation was just a mistake, in the criminal case in Nashville, the government said it would do it again and would deport him upon his release from pretrial custody in that case.
A hearing in the criminal case is scheduled for July 16 to determine whether to release Abrego Garcia from custody. In the meantime, Judge Xinis will hold a hearing on Thursday and has ordered the government to produce a witness who can give her definitive answers under oath—the government’s lawyers couldn’t do that today—explaining what the government’s plans for Abrego Garcia are and whether that might include deporting him to a third country. The government’s position isn’t entirely clear, but it appears to be that they believe they are not obligated to provide a person with due process before a deportation of that nature takes place.
I know a lot of people believe this case means the end of the rule of law. I share the concerns about what the Trump administration is doing, but not the conclusion. DOJ lawyers shouldn’t be doing the president’s bidding, offering political arguments in court. At one point, an impatient Judge Xinis had to tell a lawyer she didn’t need his “stump speech.” The government seemed more concerned with the politics of the case than with the facts and the law. But Adam and I discuss why this case, including the fact that it was brought at all and the path it has taken, gives us confidence that the rule of law is alive and kicking. You’ll want to watch the full video to hear our discussion on that point and decide if you agree.
Remember, this administration wants you to believe that democracy is lost so that you’ll give up. Don’t let them do that to you! We can fight back with facts and analysis. We can win by refusing to be overwhelmed. We have to continue running a race that’s turning out to be a marathon for democracy. That’s why I appreciate everyone who is here reading and subscribing to Civil Discourse, which makes this work possible. We are going to keep this Republic.
We’re in this together,
Joyce
Share
