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. 

Workers moving equipment and road signs on a highway. (Getty Images)  

A Rhode Island federal judge seemed likely Wednesday to block the U.S. Department of Transportation’s move to yank billions in congressional funding for bridges, roads and airport projects if Democrat-led states do not partake in federal immigration enforcement.

U.S. District Judge John James McConnell Jr. during a hearing pressed acting U.S. Attorney Sara Miron Bloom on how the Transportation Department could have power over funding that was approved by Congress, saying federal agencies “only have appropriations power given by Congress.”

“That’s how the Constitution works,” he said. “Where does the secretary get the power and authority to impose immigration conditions on transportation funding?”

The suit brought by 20 Democratic state attorneys general challenges an April directive from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, a former House member from Wisconsin, that requires states to cooperate in federal immigration enforcement in order to receive federal grants already approved by Congress.

“Defendents seek to hold hostage tens of billions of dollars of critical transportation funding in order to force the plaintiff states to become mere arms of the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies,” Delbert Tran of the California Department of Justice, who argued on behalf of the states, said.

Arguing on behalf of the Trump administration, Bloom said that Duffy’s letter simply directs the states to follow federal immigration law.

McConnell, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2011, said that while the states could interpret it that way, the Trump administration has gone after so-called sanctuary cities and targeted them for not taking the same aggressive immigration enforcement as the administration.

The judge said Bloom’s argument expressed a “very different” interpretation of the directive than how the administration has described it publicly. He also noted President Donald Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have “railed on … the issues that arise from sanctuary cities.”

Trump this week directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to target Chicago, Los Angeles and New York — three major Democrat-led cities that have policies to not aid in immigration enforcement.

McConnell said he would make a decision whether to issue a preliminary injunction before Friday. The preliminary injunction would be tailored to the states that brought the suit and would not have a nationwide effect.

The states that brought the suit are California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin.

Undermines Congress

Tran said the Department of Transportation’s directive is not only arbitrary and capricious, but undermines congressional authority because Congress appropriated more than $100 billion for transportation projects to the states.

Cutting off funding would have disastrous consequences, the states have argued.

“More cars, planes, and trains will crash, and more people will die as a result, if Defendants cut off federal funding to Plaintiff States,” according to the brief from the states.

Transportation security and immigration

Bloom defended Duffy’s letter, saying it listed actions that would impede federal law enforcement and justified withholding of funds because “such actions compromise the safety and security of the transportation systems supported by DOT financial assistance.”

McConnell said that didn’t answer his question about the secretary’s authority to withhold congressionally appropriated funding.

“It seems to me that the secretary is saying that a failure to comply with immigration conditions is relevant to the safety and security of the transportation system,” Bloom said.

McConnell seemed skeptical of that argument.

“Under that rationale, does the secretary of the Department of Transportation have the authority to impose a condition on federal highway funds that prohibit a state that has legalized abortion from seeking a federal grant?” he asked. 

Bloom said that question was beyond her directive from the Department of Transportation to address in her arguments to the court.

“I understand your question,” she said. “All I think I can say is that here the secretary has, in his statement, set out a rationale for why this is relevant to DOT funding.”

Tran said that the “crux of this case is” that the Trump administration is trying “to enforce other laws that do not apply to these grants,” by requiring states to partake in immigration enforcement.

“It’s beyond their statutory authority,” he argued.

A voter shows identification to an election judge. (Photo by Jeff Swensen/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — A Massachusetts federal judge on Friday blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order requiring states to mandate voters in federal elections provide documents proving their citizenship, ruling the measure would cause a significant burden to states and potentially harm voters.

U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper issued a preliminary injunction stopping the order from going into effect while the case is pending.

“There is no dispute (nor could there be) that U.S. citizenship is required to vote in federal elections and the federal voter registration forms require attestation of citizenship,” Casper wrote in her order.

“The issue here is whether the President can require documentary proof of citizenship where the authority for election requirements is in the hands of Congress, its statutes … do not require it, and the statutorily created (Election Assistance Commission) is required to go through a notice and comment period and consult with the States before implementing any changes to the federal forms for voter registration,” Casper, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, continued.

Democratic attorneys general in 19 states brought the suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts after the president signed the order in March.

The order directed the federal Election Assistance Commission, which distributes grants to states, within 30 days to start requiring people registering to vote to provide proof of citizenship, such as a passport or state-issued identification that indicates citizenship.

Harm to voters

In her decision to grant the preliminary injunction, Casper said the states had shown that without a pause on the executive order, “citizens will be disenfranchised.”

“The States have also credibly attested that the challenged requirements could create chaos and confusion that could result in voters losing trust in the election process,” she said.

The executive order posed risks of irreparable harm to states “for at least three reasons,” Casper wrote.

She noted the cost and resources to implement the executive order, the federal funding states are at risk of losing if they do not comply with the order and discouraging voter participation.

Chilling voter participation is “the antithesis of Congress’s purpose in enacting the (The Uniform Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) and the (National Voter Registration Act),” she wrote.

The order also would prohibit the counting of absentee or mail-in ballots that are received after Election Day. States set their own rules for ballot counting and many allow those that arrive after Election Day but postmarked before.

The states that brought the challenge to the executive order are: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

Crackdown on immigrants

The executive order that Trump signed in March was a culmination of his rhetoric on the campaign trail about people without U.S. citizenship voting in federal elections and his vow to crackdown on immigration and carry out mass deportations.

Republicans have sought to use the rare examples of people without citizenship voting in federal elections, and local governments that allow immigrants to vote in local elections, to tighten restrictions on voter registration.

U.S. House Republicans in April passed a bill to codify the executive order.

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, conducted an analysis of election conduct from 2003 to 2023 and found 29 instances of noncitizens voting, just more than one per year.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court suspended a Dane County judge for a week Tuesday for leaving court to try to arrest a hospitalized defendant herself and getting into a sarcastic exchange with another defendant seeking a trial delay.

The court agreed with a judicial conduct review panel’s suspension recommendation for Ellen Berz, finding that she deserved more than a reprimand because she behaved impulsively and showed a lack of restraint. The suspension will begin June 26, the court ordered.

“We believe that the recommended seven-day suspension is of sufficient length to impress upon Judge Berz the necessity of patience, impartiality, and restraint in her work, and to demonstrate to the public the judiciary’s dedication to promoting professionalism among its members,” the justices wrote in the suspension order. Justice Jill Karofsky, herself a former Dane County judge, did not participate in the case.

The suspension order noted that Berz has acknowledged the facts of the case and has accepted full responsibility. Andrew Rima, one of two attorneys listed for Berz in online court records, declined to comment. Her other attorney, Steven Caya, didn’t immediately respond to an email.

Berz is the second Wisconsin judge that the state Supreme Court has suspended in the last five weeks. The justices suspended Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan indefinitely on April 29 after federal prosecutors accused her of helping a man evade U.S. immigration agents by showing him out a back door in her courtroom.

A federal grand jury has indicted Dugan on one count of obstruction and one count of concealing a person to prevent arrest. She has pleaded not guilty and is set to stand trial in July.

The Wisconsin Judicial Commission filed a misconduct complaint against Berz, the Dane County judge, in October accusing her of failing to promote public confidence in judicial impartiality, failing to treat people professionally and failing to performing her duties without bias.

According to the complaint, Berz was presiding over an operating-while-intoxicated case in December 2021. The defendant didn’t show up in court on the day the trial was set to begin. His attorney told Berz that the defendant had been admitted to a hospital.

Berz had a staff member investigate and learned that he was in a Sun Prairie emergency room. The judge ordered her bailiff to go arrest him, but was told the bailiff couldn’t leave the courthouse. She declared that she would retrieve the defendant herself, and if something happened to her, people would hear about it on the news, according to the complaint. She then left court and began driving to the emergency room with the defendant’s attorney in the passenger seat, the complaint says. No prosecutor was present in the vehicle.

She eventually turned around after the defense attorney warned her that traveling to the hospital was a bad idea because she was supposed to be the neutral decision-maker in the case, according to the complaint. She went back into court and issued a warrant for the defendant’s arrest.

The complaint also alleges she told a defendant in a child sexual assault case who had asked to delay his trial for a second time that he was playing games and should “go to the prison and talk to them about all the games you can play.”

When the defendant said her sarcasm was clear, she told him: “Good. I thought it would be. That’s why I’m saying it to you that way, because I thought you would relate with that.”

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

Wisconsin Supreme Court suspends judge who left court to arrest hospitalized defendant is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.

The FBI on Friday arrested a Milwaukee judge accused of helping a man evade immigration authorities, escalating a clash between the Trump administration and local authorities over the Republican president’s sweeping immigration crackdown.

Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan is accused of escorting the man and his lawyer out of her courtroom through the jury door last week after learning that immigration authorities were seeking his arrest. The man was taken into custody outside the courthouse after agents chased him on foot.

President Donald Trump’s administration has accused state and local officials of interfering with his immigration enforcement priorities. The arrest also comes amid a growing battle between the administration and the federal judiciary over the president’s executive actions over deportations and other matters.

Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, in a statement on the arrest, accused the Trump administration of repeatedly using “dangerous rhetoric to attack and attempt to undermine our judiciary at every level.”

“I have deep respect for the rule of law, our nation’s judiciary, the importance of judges making decisions impartially without fear or favor, and the efforts of law enforcement to hold people accountable if they commit a crime,” Evers said. “I will continue to put my faith in our justice system as this situation plays out in the court of law.”

Dugan was taken into custody by the FBI on Friday morning on the courthouse grounds, according to U.S. Marshals Service spokesperson Brady McCarron. She appeared briefly in federal court in Milwaukee later Friday before being released from custody. She faces charges of “concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest” and obstructing or impeding a proceeding.

“Judge Dugan wholeheartedly regrets and protests her arrest. It was not made in the interest of public safety,” her attorney, Craig Mastantuono, said during the hearing. He declined to comment to an Associated Press reporter following her court appearance.

Court papers suggest Dugan was alerted to the presence of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in the courthouse by her clerk, who was informed by an attorney that they appeared to be in the hallway.

The FBI affidavit describes Dugan as “visibly angry” over the arrival of immigration agents in the courthouse and says that she pronounced the situation “absurd” before leaving the bench and retreating to her chambers. It says she and another judge later approached members of the arrest team inside the courthouse, displaying what witnesses described as a “confrontational, angry demeanor.”

After a back-and-forth with officers over the warrant for the man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, she demanded that the arrest team speak with the chief judge and led them away from the courtroom, the affidavit says.

After directing the arrest team to the chief judge’s office, investigators say, Dugan returned to the courtroom and was heard saying words to the effect of “wait, come with me” before ushering Flores-Ruiz and his lawyer through a jury door into a non-public area of the courthouse. The action was unusual, the affidavit says, because “only deputies, juries, court staff, and in-custody defendants being escorted by deputies used the back jury door. Defense attorneys and defendants who were not in custody never used the jury door.”

A sign that remained posted on Dugan’s courtroom door Friday advised that if any attorney or other court official “knows or believes that a person feels unsafe coming to the courthouse to courtroom 615,” they should notify the clerk and request an appearance via Zoom.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the man was facing domestic violence charges and victims were sitting in the courtroom with state prosecutors when the judge helped him escape immigration arrest.

The judge “put the lives of our law enforcement officers at risk. She put the lives of citizens at risk. A street chase — it’s absurd that that had to happen,” Bondi said on Fox News Channel.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, a Democrat who represents Wisconsin, called the arrest of a sitting judge a “gravely serious and drastic move” that “threatens to breach” the separation of power between the executive and judicial branches.

“Make no mistake, we do not have kings in this country and we are a Democracy governed by laws that everyone must abide by,” Baldwin said in an emailed statement. “By relentlessly attacking the judicial system, flouting court orders, and arresting a sitting judge, this President is putting those basic Democratic values that Wisconsinites hold dear on the line.”

The case is similar to one brought during the first Trump administration against a Massachusetts judge, who was accused of helping a man sneak out a back door of a courthouse to evade a waiting immigration enforcement agent.

That prosecution sparked outrage from many in the legal community, who slammed the case as politically motivated. Prosecutors dropped the case against Newton District Judge Shelley Joseph in 2022 under the Democratic Biden administration after she agreed to refer herself to a state agency that investigates allegations of misconduct by members of the bench.

The Justice Department had previously signaled that it was going to crack down on local officials who thwart federal immigration efforts.

The department in January ordered prosecutors to investigate for potential criminal charges any state and local officials who obstruct or impede federal functions. As potential avenues for prosecution, a memo cited a conspiracy offense as well as a law prohibiting the harboring of people in the country illegally.

Dugan was elected in 2016 to the county court Branch 31. She also has served in the court’s probate and civil divisions, according to her judicial candidate biography.

Before being elected to public office, Dugan practiced at Legal Action of Wisconsin and the Legal Aid Society. She graduated from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981 with a bachelor of arts degree and earned her Juris Doctorate in 1987 from the school.

Wisconsin Watch is a nonprofit and nonpartisan newsroom. Subscribe to our newsletters to get our investigative stories and Friday news roundup. This story is published in partnership with The Associated Press.

FBI arrests Milwaukee County judge accused of helping man evade immigration officials is a post from Wisconsin Watch, a non-profit investigative news site covering Wisconsin since 2009. Please consider making a contribution to support our journalism.