A protester holds a photo of Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025 in New York City. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

GREENBELT, Maryland — A federal judge at a hearing Monday sought more information on the Trump administration’s plans for wrongly deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose attorneys are pressing to have him transferred to Maryland from a Tennessee jail.

Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland with his wife and family before he was mistakenly deported to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador in March. While there, he said he was tortured, physically and psychologically, by Salvadoran officials, according to court records.

Now he is in custody in Tennessee, where he faces federal criminal charges related to human smuggling. He could be released as soon as July 16, and Maryland District Judge Paula Xinis questioned Department of Justice lawyers about their intentions for him upon his release.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys expressed concern that once he is released, immigration officials would immediately detain the Maryland man and either quickly remove him to a third country or send him back to El Salvador by attempting to remove his earlier deportation protections.

“We do need protection from the government waking up tomorrow and upon Mr. Abrego Garcia’s release from criminal custody, (removing him) to somewhere they haven’t identified,” said Andrew J. Rossman, of Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case in Maryland.

DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn said removing Abrego Garcia to a third country is likely the path forward, but could not confirm or detail which country.

‘Jello to a wall’

Xinis set a Thursday afternoon hearing to obtain testimony from a witness who will be involved in making the decision about what will happen to Abrego Garcia.

“It’s like trying to nail jello to a wall to figure out what happens next week,” she said of Abrego Garcia’s potential release on July 16 ahead of his trial.

Xinis said until she’s clear about what steps the Trump administration will take next, she’ll hold off on issuing an order bringing Abrego Garcia back to Maryland.

During the Monday hearing, Xinis also denied the Trump administration’s two requests to dismiss the case.

DOJ lawyers argued that because Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States, the case is now moot. Xinis said the case is not moot because the “status quo” has not been fulfilled — although Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S., he is not back in Maryland, but instead is in the custody of U.S. marshals in Tennessee.

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia made the same request last month, on an emergency basis to try to bring him back to Maryland while his criminal case continues, but Xinis denied that request as well.

At that time she referred to an answer from DOJ attorney Guynn, who said Abrego Garcia’s removal to a third country was not immediate, as part of her reasoning.

“He will be taken into (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody and removal proceedings will be initiated,” Guynn said June 26 of Abrego Garcia’s release. “There are no imminent plans to remove him to a third country.”

Rossman during Monday’s hearing also raised concerns that Abrego Garcia, yet again, would not receive proper due process if he is to be removed to a third country. He said Abrego Garcia must be notified where he will be sent and have time to appeal if he fears he will face harm in that country.

Xinis said while that will likely fall under an immigration judge, she does have the authority to have access to the information detailing how the Trump administration is going to remove Abrego Garcia.

Tennessee case

Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. from El Salvador last month to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee that accuse him “of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.”

The indictment by the Trump administration occurred while Abrego Garcia was in prison custody in El Salvador. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to the charges.

During Monday’s hearing, Xinis pressed Department of Justice attorney Bridget O’Hickey on whether the federal charges played a role in the return of Abrego Garcia to the U.S.

“He was not indicted with the purpose of bringing him back,” O’Hickey said.  “He was indicted because he was under investigation.”

Xinis questioned the timing of the investigation, which began on April 21, when Abrego Garcia was in a Salvadoran prison and shortly after the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return.

O’Hickey could not give an answer on when the investigation into Abrego Garcia began, but she said that he was “under investigation prior.”

Xinis also questioned O’Hickey on the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case entirely in May.

On May 27, the Department of Justice told Xinis that nothing could be done to return Abrego Garcia from El Salvador and therefore the case should be dismissed because of a lack of jurisdiction. But federal charges were filed on May 21.

“Why else would you file an indictment against someone you couldn’t produce?” Xinis asked O’Hickey.

O’Hickey said that negotiations with El Salvador were ongoing and that it was not clear that the indictment would mean Abrego Garcia would be released from El Salvador.

“I am aware that the proceedings were moving in tandem,” she said. 

Prison officers stand guard at a cell block at the Salvadoran mega-prison Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, on April 4, 2025. (Photo by Alex Peña/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongly deported in March to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, endured “severe beatings, severe sleep deprivation, inadequate nutrition, and psychological torture” while there, his attorneys wrote in a late Wednesday filing.

The filing, an amended complaint to the District Court of Maryland, provides the first disturbing details of what Abrego Garcia experienced at Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT.

His wrongful deportation has become the most high-profile example of the conflict between the Trump administration’s aggressive mass deportations campaign and the judiciary’s call for the due process rights of immigrants.

The allegations of torture also raise questions about the U.S. State Department’s payment to El Salvador of up to $15 million to detain about 300 immigrant men at CECOT, a possible violation of the human rights law known as the Leahy Law.

The law bars State’s financial support of “units of foreign security forces” — such as military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations.

Hit with batons, forced to kneel for hours

When Abrego Garcia first arrived to CECOT, he was told by a prison official, “Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn’t leave,” according to the filing from lawyers with Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case.

Abrego Garcia was later kicked, hit with wooden batons and beaten by Salvadoran guards on his first day at CECOT on March 15, according to the new filing.

“By the following day, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia had visible bruises and lumps all over his body,” according to the complaint.

While in a cell, Abrego Garcia and 20 other incarcerated Salvadorans were forced to kneel from 9 p.m. to 6 a.m. and guards would strike “anyone who fell from exhaustion,” according to the filing. During that time, Abrego Garcia was denied access to a bathroom and soiled himself.

“The detainees were confined to metal bunks with no mattresses in an overcrowded cell with no windows, bright lights that remained on 24 hours a day, and minimal access to sanitation,” according to the complaint.

At CECOT, the guards would threaten to put Abrego Garcia in cells with gang members “who, they assured him, would ‘tear’  him apart,” according to the filing. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have denied he is a gang member.

During his first two weeks at CECOT, Abrego Garcia’s health deteriorated, and he lost 31 pounds, his attorneys said.

Transfers to two more facilities

On April 9, Abrego Garcia and four others were transferred to a different sector in CECOT, “where they were photographed with mattresses and better food—photos that appeared to be staged to document improved conditions,” according to his attorneys.

Around April 10, he was later transferred alone to a separate prison facility in Santa Ana, El Salvador. On April 10, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia — who had deportation protections from his home country of El Salvador since 2019.

But for months, the Trump administration has argued that Abrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador, and the United States could not force El Salvador to return him.

At the new location, Abrego Garcia “was frequently hidden from visitors, being told to remain in a separate room whenever outside visitors came to the facility,” according to the filing.

“During his entire time in detention in El Salvador, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was denied any communication with his family and access to counsel until Senator (Chris) Van Hollen visited him on April 17, 2025,” according to the brief.

The Maryland Democrat traveled to El Salvador in an effort to bring back Abrego Garcia, who is a longtime Maryland resident.

Criminal charges

While Abrego Garica was returned to the U.S. last month, it was to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee while he was detained in El Salvador. His attorneys have denied the charges of human smuggling and say they are nothing more than the Trump administration trying to save face.

Abrego Garcia’s criminal case is being handled out of a Tennessee court and he’s being kept in jail due to fears Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will deport him.

Department of Justice attorneys stated in the District Court of Maryland last week that the Trump administration plans to remove Abrego Garcia to a third country, but said the move was not immediate.

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia are trying to move forward with discovery to determine if the Trump administration flouted the district court’s order and the Supreme Court’s order in refusing to return Abrego Garcia to the U.S. after the Trump administration admitted his deportation was a mistake.

“Defendants’ disdain for the law and legal process, and their cruelty, shocks the conscience and demands immediate, sustained, judicial relief and oversight,” according to the complaint. “It also marks a profound constitutional crisis in which executive agencies have repeatedly and deliberately flouted the authority of multiple federal courts—including the Supreme Court itself.”

“This defiance undermines the foundational principles of our constitutional system by eroding the checks and balances and rule of law that protect individual liberty from government overreach,” the attorneys continued. 

Sen. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., right, meets with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland resident who was erroneously deported to El Salvador by ICE agents. (Photo courtesy Van Hollen's office)

This report has been updated.

GREENBELT, Maryland — The Trump administration plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a third country once he is released from federal custody, a Department of Justice attorney disclosed during a Thursday emergency court hearing.

Attorneys for the unlawfully deported Abrego Garcia had made an emergency request Thursday to bring him back to Maryland while his criminal case continues.

The move by the lawyers followed earlier public statements from Trump administration officials that they would deport Abrego Garcia to El Salvador upon his release from a Tennessee federal court as soon as Friday. But Thursday, plans appeared to have shifted to deportation somewhere else.

DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn, under questioning by District of Maryland Judge Paula Xinis, said the Trump administration planned to deport Abrego Garcia, and “to a third country is my understanding.”

“He will be taken into (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) custody and removal proceedings will be initiated,” Guynn said of Abrego Garcia’s release. “There are no imminent plans to remove him to a third country.”

Xinis declined the request to return him to Maryland, arguing that Abrego Garcia has not been released and that she’s not clear if she has the jurisdiction to fulfill such a request.

She added that Guynn said the U.S. Department of Homeland Security does not have “imminent plans” to deport Abrego Garcia to a third country, while holding out that possibility.

The Supreme Court this week, ruled that it will allow, for now, the Trump administration to continue carrying out deportations to third countries, after a Massachusetts judge barred removals without proper notice. In such cases, immigrants are deported to countries that are not their native countries and may be far from them.

Jonathan Cooper, a partner of Quinn Emmanuel, the firm representing Abrego Garcia in his immigration case, tried to ask Xinis if she would require the Trump administration to notify Cooper and his team before deporting him to a third country.

“We have concerns that the government may try to move Mr. Abrego Garcia quickly over the weekend,” Cooper said.

Xinis said she would not because Guynn said that the Trump administration had no “imminent plans” to remove Abrego Garcia.

Cooper laid out the same concerns in the written emergency request to Xinis Thursday.

“The Government’s public statements leave little doubt about its plan: remove Abrego Garcia to El Salvador once more,” according to the complaint written by attorneys from Quinn Emmanuel.

“If this Court does not act swiftly, then the Government is likely to whisk Abrego Garcia away to some place far from Maryland,” it says.

Federal prosecutors in Tennessee court have said that should Abrego Garcia be released, he would be immediately arrested by ICE agents and could face deportation back to El Salvador, despite having protections from such removal since 2019.

Tennessee case

Abrego Garcia was returned from El Salvador earlier this month to the United States to face federal criminal charges lodged in Tennessee that accuse him “of conspiracy to unlawfully transport illegal aliens for financial gain” and “unlawful transportation of illegal aliens for financial gain.”

The indictment occurred while Abrego Garcia was housed in a Salvadoran prison.

The human smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee when police pulled Abrego Garcia over for speeding. Eight other men were in the car, but neither Abrego Garcia nor the passengers were arrested.

DHS opened an investigation into the three-year-old stop and Attorney General Pam Bondi held a press conference on the day Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. to face federal charges.

She argued that the traffic stop was part of a years-long human smuggling scheme where Abrego Garcia was paid by members of the MS-13 gang to transport migrants who entered the country without legal authorization to destinations across the country.

His attorneys have denied the charges and Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty in federal court in Nashville.

Stephen Miller, the chief architect of many of the president’s immigration policies and a senior White House adviser, has written on social media that Abrego Garcia would be deported back to El Salvador if released. Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have pointed to that statement as to why they want him brought back to Maryland.

The Trump administration has alleged that Abrego Garcia is a leader of the MS-13 gang, and President Donald Trump has made those same allegations. During an interview, the president held up a photo of Abrego Garcia’s knuckles that were digitally altered to type MS-13 on his fingers.

House Democrats pressed DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in May about the doctored photo and she sidestepped questions about whether the photo was real, until she eventually said she was unaware it existed.

She added that even if Abrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. that he would be immediately deported.

Maryland arguments

In Maryland, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers said in their complaint they want to ensure he is not deported again.

“This motion does not ask this Court to adjudicate Abrego Garcia’s custodial status in the Tennessee criminal proceedings; that is for the Tennessee district court to resolve,” they wrote.

“Nor does this motion seek to alter any of the conditions of release set by the Tennessee district court or otherwise interfere with the Tennessee criminal proceedings. This motion simply seeks to ensure that when Abrego Garcia is released from criminal custody, he returns to, and remains in, this District (other than to travel to Tennessee as needed), until further order from this Court.”

Abrego Garcia lives with his family in Maryland. “Maryland is where he was on March 12 at the moment his unlawful removal saga began, when ICE agents with ‘no warrant for his arrest and no lawful basis’ arrested him and locked him up at an ‘ICE facility in Baltimore, Maryland,’” the complaint said.

“Returning Abrego Garcia to Maryland implements the Supreme Court’s directive and safeguards this Court’s jurisdiction in this matter,” it added.

Clashes between administration and judges

Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation drew national attention to the Trump administration’s aggressive mass deportations campaign that some judges have found skirted due process rights for immigrants. The White House has clashed with the judicial branch with some frequency over immigration decisions.

The Trump administration this week has, in an unusual move, sued the entire judicial bench of the District Court of Maryland, including Xinis, over a standing order to require a two-day pause for deportations due to a high volume of habeas corpus claims from immigrants challenging their detention in the state. A habeas corpus claim allows immigrants to challenge their detention.

Abrego Garcia has had deportation protections from his home country since 2019, but in March he was arrested in Maryland by federal immigration officials while driving his son home and informed his status had changed. Days later, he was deported to a notorious prison in El Salvador, a move the Trump administration admitted was a mistake.

In April, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration had to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States, but stopped short of requiring it.

For the next two months, administration officials would testify in a Maryland court that Abrego Garcia’s return was out of their hands and up to the government of El Salvador.

Xinis has accused the Trump administration of stonewalling information and is allowing for discovery in the civil case to continue to determine if the Trump administration violated her court order to return Abrego Garcia. 

Essential immigrant workers and their families gather in front of the Federal Building in Milwaukee for the Day Without Immigrants call to action. (Photo | Isiah Holmes)

People who believe the call to action, Black Lives Matter, to be controversial and provocative should buckle up.

What we’ve been witnessing these last weeks has been a new call to action: Immigrant Lives Matter.

Yes, even undocumented immigrant lives matter.

Black Lives Matter stirred passionate backlash unlike anything I’ve seen since the 1960s. 

Immigrant Lives Matter is now a cry to recognize the humanity of people who are suffering violent attacks after being demonized as “aliens.” 

I’ve written on immigration as a reporter, columnist and editorial writer for decades. The most invective I’ve had directed my way has been about who I am as the son of immigrants.

“Go back to Mexico” was a common retort to things I wrote. Each time I’d chuckle to myself: “Hard to do since I’m from California.” 

Yup, I’m not from Mexico. But my parents were. And they lived in this country without legal status until I was in grade school.

I’m quite familiar with immigrant life, although, thanks to the 14th Amendment (also under attack by the Trump administration), I’m a citizen. 

I’ve seen up close what being afraid of deportation looks like. The fear that a family would be torn apart, loss of livelihood and loss of the country you chose to work in, pay taxes for, build a family in and the only one your children know. And, in my case as with many other immigrants and children of immigrants, the country in whose military you chose to serve.

That experience and those decades of writing on immigration taught me that among the hottest buttons around are those dealing with the border, particularly when people cross it who don’t look and talk like you. 

Standard disclaimer: You don’t have to be a racist to be concerned about immigration and immigrants, but using terms such as invasion, infestation, vermin, criminals and threat to American identity and values is a big tell.

As is calling out the military to combat a non-existent foreign invasion.

Black Lives Matter speaks to the current plight of people whose ancestors were unwilling immigrants, packed into slave ships and brought here by force. Dehumanizing racism and the shocking mistreatment of Black citizens by police has dogged our nation from the beginning.

But  even that call to action, after the murder of George Floyd by Minneapolis police, was roundly disparaged.

Wrap your head around that. Americans who have been around since the country’s founding and over whose slavery a country fought a bitter civil war are still not considered American enough to  insist on being treated as Americans.

All that immigrants and those who stand in solidarity with them are asking is that the basic precepts of fairness, humanity and, importantly, due process extend to them as well. 

Immigrants are in a vulnerable position. Demagoguing about invasion and infestation is just too tempting for nativists and opportunists who prey on prejudices for political gain.

Los Angeles has been in the news because of protests that the Trump administration has been trying very hard to depict as a violent conflagration. But the protests have been  mostly peaceful by people reasonably objecting to ICE raids. The ICE targets are people who have worked here for years, raising U.S. citizen children and doing the work Americans won’t do. 

Despite footage of “violent“ protesters cast as “invaders” faced by brave military troops, California’s governor and many others have noted that there was no widespread, destructive civil unrest, much less the foreign invasion that the demagogues claim justifies military involvement. 

Be afraid. We need to stop underestimating the appeal of nativism. It’s real in this country.

But something happened after President Trump’s unwarranted use of the military in Los Angeles and in reaction to his military parade in Washington D.C. (lightly attended, to the president’s dismay).

The “No Kings” protests. 

I saw them as solidarity with Immigrant Lives Matter.

Black lives will always matter. After the phrase was coined, some people  insisted that it meant other lives mattered less. 

Nonsense, then and now.

Immigrant lives matter, as with Black lives, as much as your life does.  And if we don’t protect the lives of the people in the crosshairs now, we all could be next.

Yessenia Ruano as she prepares to self-deport to El Salvador (Photo courtesy of Voces de la Frontera)

A Milwaukee teacher’s aide has decided to self-deport back to El Salvador, following moves by the Trump administration’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to remove her from the country. Yessenia Ruano, who worked at the Academia de Lenguaje y Bellas Artes bilingual school in Milwaukee, is the mother of 10-year-old twin girls. Although the girls were born in the United States, Ruano took her daughters with her back to El Salvador on Tuesday, choosing to self-deport and keep her family intact rather than being forcibly removed by ICE. 

On Friday, federal immigration officials denied Ruano’s request for an emergency stay, which would have halted the government’s attempts to remove her while her visa application was considered, WPR reported. Ruano’s attorney Marc Chirstopher said that ICE gave a one-sentence rationale for denying the stay. 

Christopher said that ICE officials claimed that Ruano “did not warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.” 

“Quite frankly, if she doesn’t warrant it, I don’t know who does.” Christopher said. Ruano did not have a criminal record. She crossed the southern border in 2011 to escape gang violence after local gang members murdered her brother. Christopher added that “she’s very involved in the community,” as  a teacher’s aide for kindergarten teachers, owns  her own house and  pays taxes into a safety net system she is not eligible to access. 

 “I am extremely disappointed in ICE’s decision to deny an emergency stay for my constituent Yessenia Ruano,” U.S. Rep.  Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) said in a statement. “It is outright cruel to force a human trafficking victim to return to the place she was fleeing from.” Ruano was applying for  a T-visa, which confers legal status on  victims of human trafficking. “T-visas are meant for people like Yessenia, but sadly, she wasn’t even given the chance to have her case heard,” said Moore. “Yessenia is a wonderful person and her and [her] children’s removal from Milwaukee will be a loss to our community.”

Ruano received a letter telling her  to self-deport on June 3, spurring condemnation from Milwaukee residents, immigrant rights advocates and elected leaders. At the time, Ruano’s attorneys said that it appeared that ICE was abandoning policies of waiting for T and U visas — which protect victims of trafficking and crime victims who are cooperating with law enforcement— to be processed. 

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley wrote on the social media website X that “deporting valued members of our community who are raising and educating our kids, assisting law enforcement in their important work, and giving back to our neighborhoods should alarm us all. It is wrong and unjust.” Crowley added that “these individuals are victims of a broken immigration system. The Trump Administration told the country they were only going after ‘the worst of the worst’. But time and time again, we see them targeting the very people who contribute the most — our neighbors, coworkers, our friends.” The county executive warned that “I am deeply alarmed that our country continues to turn its back on our most vulnerable. By not standing up and protecting our neighbors, we’re not just failing them — we’re failing our entire community. Due process is under attack, and that should concern all of us in Wisconsin and across the country.”

During a May 30 hearing, ICE officials told Ruano to self-deport by June 3. During that hearing her attorneys filed for an emergency stay, beginning a wait-period of several weeks until a decision was finally made, WPR reported. Attorney Christopher said that few emergency stays are being granted under the second Trump administration. 

Earlier this month, the Milwaukee Common Council released a statement opposing Ruano’s impending deportation, and held 14 minutes of silence to honor her 14 years in the United States. “Yessenia has developed roots here,” the council stated. “She is a wife with two Milwaukee-born daughters. She is an educator. She is a volunteer. She is a contributing member of our society. All of us should be outraged by this decision and what it means for Yessenia and her family, and other immigrants who could be facing similar fates.” 

“If there is one thing this case has made crystal clear,” the statement continued,  “it’s that the immigration laws and systems in our country are broken, and the administration at the federal level is more concerned with scapegoating hard working immigrants than fixing the process so it is fair and works for everyone.”

Before Christopher took on  Ruano as a client about two months ago, Ruano had paid over $14,000 in legal fees to file the T-visa application to a different team of Ohio-based attorneys. 

“From what I’ve been seeing consistently through other cases and hearing from other attorneys, they’re not granting hardly any stays for anyone really,” said Christopher. “I am more than positive that she would have been able to remain in the U.S. while the T-visa was pending…under previous administrations.” 

Senator Alex Padilla, D-Calif.,  speaks at a Biden-Harris campaign and DNC press conference on July 18, 2024 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. (Photo by Jim Vondruska/Getty Images)

Federal law enforcement officials forcibly removed and handcuffed U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla at a Thursday press conference in Los Angeles by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem amid multi-day protests against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

The scuffle between law enforcement, including an officer wearing a jacket with an FBI logo, and a United States senator represented a stark escalation of tensions after President Donald Trump ordered 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to LA. His action followed major protests sparked by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials ramping up immigration raids.

Before Padilla was physically removed, Noem said that the Trump administration would continue its immigration enforcement in LA.

“We are not going away,” Noem, the former governor of South Dakota, said. “We are staying here to liberate the city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor have placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.”

Padilla, 52, a member of the Senate since 2021, when he was appointed to replace former Vice President Kamala Harris, and then elected in 2022, tried to ask Noem a question and was rushed by federal law enforcement.

“I’m Sen. Alex Padilla and I have questions for the secretary,” he said as four federal law enforcement officers grabbed him and shoved him to the ground. “Hands off.”

The DHS wrote on social media that U.S. Secret Service officers thought “he was an attacker and officers acted appropriately.”

DHS said that after the press conference, Noem and Padilla had a 15-minute meeting. His office did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment.

In a statement, Padilla’s office said the California senator was in LA for congressional oversight into the federal government’s operations in LA and across California.

“He was in the federal building to receive a briefing with General Guillot and was listening to Secretary Noem’s press conference,” his office said, referring to General Gregory M. Guillot, commander of United States Northern Command.

“He tried to ask the Secretary a question, and was forcibly removed by federal agents, forced to the ground and handcuffed. He is not currently detained, and we are working to get additional information.”

The incident drew swift condemnation from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York.

“Watching this video sickened my stomach, the manhandling of a United States Senator, Senator Padilla,” Schumer wrote on social media. “We need immediate answers to what the hell went on.”

On the Senate floor, Schumer said the video of Padilla “reeks of totalitarianism.”

He called for a full investigation so that “this doesn’t happen again.”

Padilla gave remarks after the incident, with The Associated Press. He did not take questions. 

“If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question, if this is how the Department of Homeland Security responds to a senator with a question, you can only imagine what they’re doing to farmworkers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community,” Padilla said. 

Protesters gather outside of the Milwaukee FBI office to speak out against the arrest of Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Prosecutors for the Trump administration filed a brief Monday requesting that a federal judge not dismiss the government’s indictment against Milwaukee County Judge Hannah Dugan. 

Dugan faces criminal charges after Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, along with agents from the Drug Enforcement Agency and FBI, arrived in the Milwaukee County Courthouse April 18 to arrest 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz for being in the country illegally. 

Flores-Ruiz was set to appear in Dugan’s courtroom that day for a status hearing on misdemeanor charges against him. When Dugan learned that the agents were outside her courtroom, she confronted them and learned they only had an administrative warrant, which was issued by an agency official and not a judge. An administrative warrant doesn’t allow agents to enter private spaces in the courthouse such as Dugan’s courtroom. 

Later, while the agents were waiting for Flores-Ruiz in the hallway outside the main courtroom door, Dugan sent him and his attorney out a side door into the hallway. One of the agents rode down the elevator with Flores-Ruiz and he was later arrested on the street.

Dugan-DOJ-Filing

Dugan was charged with concealing an individual to prevent arrest, a misdemeanor, and obstruction, which is a felony. Last month, Dugan’s attorneys filed a motion to dismiss the case against her, arguing she was acting in her official capacity as a judge and therefore immune from prosecution for her actions and that the federal government is impinging on the state of Wisconsin’s authority to operate its court system. 

The case drew national attention, with Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel both making public statements about Dugan’s arrest before she’d even been indicted. Legal experts have questioned the strength of the federal government’s case and accused Trump officials of grandstanding to make a political point. 

In the Monday filing, federal prosecutors argued that dismissing the case would ignore previously established law that allows judges to face criminal charges. 

“Such a ruling would give state court judges carte blanche to interfere with valid law enforcement actions by federal agents in public hallways of a courthouse, and perhaps even beyond,” the prosecutors argued. “Dugan’s desired ruling would, in essence, say that judges are ‘above the law,’ and uniquely entitled to interfere with federal law enforcement.”

Dugan is set to appear for trial on July 21.

A protester holds a photo of Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia as demonstrators gather to protest against the deportation of immigrants to El Salvador outside the Permanent Mission of El Salvador to the United Nations on April 24, 2025. (Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man wrongly deported to his native El Salvador three months ago, was brought back to the U.S. on Friday and will face federal charges, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said.

Abrego Garcia’s case had become a flashpoint in a debate over what due process rights protect immigrants from deportation after federal officials conceded he was sent to a notorious El Salvador mega-prison because of an administrative error. 

Still, President Donald Trump, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele, Bondi and other administration officials said for months Abrego Garcia could not be released because of criminal conduct they had not publicly produced evidence of.

In a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One Friday night, Trump declined to say whether it was his decision to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S., according to White House pool reports.

“He should have never had to be returned,” Trump said. “It’s a disaster.”

Bondi said Friday a federal warrant for Abrego Garcia’s arrest on human trafficking charges compelled his release from the Salvadoran prison system.

“Abrego Garcia has landed in the United States to face justice,” Bondi said at a Department of Justice news conference Friday afternoon. “He was a smuggler of humans and women and children.”

The 10-page indictment filed in the Middle District of Tennessee comes after a federal grand jury indicted him on May 21 for allegedly transporting migrants in the U.S. without legal authorization within the country.

Chris Newman, an attorney representing the Abrego Garcia family said at a virtual press event Friday that he remained skeptical of the federal charges lodged at Abrego Garcia.

“I can tell you that we should all treat whatever charges that are being leveled against him with a high degree of suspicion,” Newman said. “We should make sure that he gets a fair (trial) in court because he’s clearly not getting a fair hearing in the court of public opinion.”

Bondi did not detail when the investigation into Abrego Garcia began, but said the federal indictment charges contained “recently found facts.”

“This is what American justice looks like upon completion of his sentence, we anticipate he will be returned to his home country of El Salvador,” Bondi said.

WKRN in Nashville said Abrego Garcia’s arraignment has been scheduled for 10 a.m. Friday. 

Outcry over due process

Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation to the notorious mega-prison Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, drew national outcry as the Trump administration clashed with a federal court that ordered the return of the Beltsville man and resisted the U.S. Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” his return.

Despite the orders, Trump administration officials did not appear to take any public steps to secure Abrego Garcia’s release, and at times seemed to relish their defiance of the courts.

Bondi thanked El Salvador’s government Friday for releasing Abrego Garcia in compliance with the warrant.

The Trump administration has argued in federal court in Maryland for months that Abrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador and therefore cannot be returned, despite a $15 million agreement between the U.S. and the Salvadoran government to keep roughly 300 men removed from the U.S. and detained at CECOT. Abrego Garcia had been moved to a different El Salvador prison prior to his release.

Abrego Gacia had deportation protections to his home country of El Salvador since 2019.

He was pulled over by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in March and informed that his immigration status had changed. He was later placed on one of three deportation flights on March 15 to CECOT.

The Trump administration admitted his removal was an “administrative error” but has since alleged that Abrego Garcia was a leader in the MS-13 gang without producing evidence in the federal civil court overseeing the suit challenging his removal.

Maryland U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who traveled to El Salvador to press for Abrego Garcia’s release and return to the U.S., welcomed the news as a victory for due process rights.

“As I have repeatedly said, this is not about the man, it’s about his constitutional rights – and the rights of all,” the Maryland Democrat said in a statement. “The Administration will now have to make its case in the court of law, as it should have all along.”

William J. Ford contributed to this report.

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem during a tour of the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, on March 26, 2025. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Wednesday ordered the Trump administration to allow Venezuelan men removed under an 18th-century wartime law and sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador to have their cases heard in court, though he conceded the logistics of the order would be challenging to sort out.

In a 69-page order, Judge James Boasberg partially granted an injunction to require 137 Venezuelans be given due process. He ruled that they had no chance to challenge their removal under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, or the accusation that they are members of the Tren de Aragua gang.

The Trump administration will have until June 11 to put forth a plan for the men removed under the wartime law and sent to the mega-prison known as Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo, or CECOT, to be afforded their due process rights.

“The Government has violated the CECOT Class’s vested right to due process, an infringement that risks inflicting irreparable harm for which the public interest requires a remedy,” Boasberg said. “The question — simply asked but not so simply answered — thus becomes what relief they must obtain for that violation.”

Boasberg said that the Trump administration “plainly deprived these individuals of their right to seek habeas relief before their summary removal from the United States — a right that need not itself be vindicated through a habeas petition.”

He said that even if President Donald Trump lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act and if those subject to the proclamation are members of the Tren de Aragua gang, they must be given a chance to contest the charges.

“This is the critical point —there is simply no way to know for sure, as the CECOT Plaintiffs never had any opportunity to challenge the Government’s say-so.”

“Defendants instead spirited away planeloads of people before any such challenge could be made,” Boasberg continued. “And now, significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.”

Order doesn’t require return

The American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the case, sought to require the Venezuelans be brought back to the U.S. from El Salvador to challenge their removals. But Boasberg rejected that argument.

Boasberg determined that even though there is a financial agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to detain the men, they are in the custody of the Salvadoran government.

“While it is a close question, the current record does not support Plaintiffs’ assertion that they are in the constructive custody of the United States,” Boasberg said.

“Even crediting the public statements characterizing the arrangement as outsourcing the U.S. prison system and acknowledging the President’s unofficial assertion of his power to request a release, such comments cannot overcome a sworn declaration from a knowledgeable government official attesting that the CECOT Class’s ongoing detention is a question of Salvadoran law.”

Department of Justice attorneys have used the same reasoning in a separate case to resist the return of the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, despite a U.S. Supreme Court order to “facilitate” the Maryland man’s return to the U.S.

ACLU will be allowed to have input to determine how due process can be afforded to the men at CECOT, Boasberg wrote.

Wednesday’s order is the latest in a months-long dispute between the Trump administration and Boasberg after three planes landed in El Salvador and roughly 300 men were sent to CECOT in mid-March, despite the judge’s temporary restraining order against using the Alien Enemies Act.

Boasberg found probable cause to hold Trump officials in contempt for violating his temporary restraining order that ordered the deportation planes carrying men removed under the Alien Enemies Act to be returned to the U.S. over concerns they did not receive due process.

The National Public Radio headquarters in Washington, D.C., is pictured on Tuesday, May 27, 2025.  (Photo by Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — A collection of National Public Radio stations sued the Trump administration on Tuesday, seeking to block an executive order that would cut off their federal funding.

The 43-page filing says the order that President Donald Trump signed earlier this month “violates the expressed will of Congress and the First Amendment’s bedrock guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association, and also threatens the existence of a public radio system that millions of Americans across the country rely on for vital news and information.”

The executive order called on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which receives its funding from Congress, to cease sending money to the Public Broadcasting Service and NPR.

The order stated that government funding for public media “is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of journalistic independence.”

The Trump administration also appeared to take issue with the types of news stories that PBS and NPR report, arguing “that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

‘Viewpoint-based discrimination’

The lawsuit says the executive order has an “overt retaliatory purpose” and “is unlawful in multiple ways.”

“The Order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and it interferes with NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ freedom of expressive association and editorial discretion,” the lawsuit states. “Lastly, by seeking to deny NPR critical funding with no notice or meaningful process, the Order violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause.”

The lawsuit was filed by NPR along with three Colorado stations — Aspen Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio and KSUT Public Radio — in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The case has been assigned to Judge Randolph D. Moss, who was nominated by then-President Barack Obama.

White House principal deputy press secretary Harrison Fields wrote in a statement that the “Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is creating media to support a particular political party on the taxpayers’ dime.

“Therefore, the President is exercising his lawful authority to limit funding to NPR and PBS. The President was elected with a mandate to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, and he will continue to use his lawful authority to achieve that objective.”

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is funded by Congress and in turn provides grants to more than 1,500 public radio and television stations throughout the United States, was established as a private “nonprofit corporation” and is not “an agency or establishment of the United States Government,” according to the lawsuit.

Power of the purse

Congress has consistently approved funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting on a bipartisan basis, including its current $535 million appropriation.

The lawsuit contends that the “loss of all direct funding from CPB and the loss (or significant decline) of revenue from local stations would be catastrophic for NPR.”

It also states the president “has no authority under the Constitution to” interfere in funding decisions made by lawmakers.” 

“On the contrary, the power of the purse is reserved to Congress, and the President has no inherent authority to override Congress’s will on domestic spending decisions,” the lawsuits says. “By unilaterally imposing restrictions and conditions on funds in contravention of Congress, the Order violates the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause of the Constitution.”