Reading Time: 4 minutes

Elections in Wisconsin are setting new spending records every year, but the U.S. Supreme Court appears set to allow even more money into political races across the country if it rules the way experts expect it to in a pending case.

A case brought to the court by Republican plaintiffs in December seeks to abolish limits on coordinated campaign expenditures – money political parties spend in collaboration with candidates. The court’s June decision to hear a challenge to its decades-old precedent speaks to the conservative majority’s distaste for regulating campaign finance, experts say.

“We know where this thing is going because of how the (Chief Justice John) Roberts’ court has dealt with campaign finance restrictions,” said Anthony Chergosky, a political science professor at UW-La Crosse.

The Supreme Court will reconsider its 2001 decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated campaign expenditures are constitutional. The limits apply to shared expenses between party and candidate, such as advertising costs.

Undoing these limits “would open a new, significant way for political parties to spend in direct support of their candidates’ campaigns,” Chergosky said.

In Wisconsin, parties coordinating with U.S. Senate candidates can spend up to about $600,000 in a general election campaign before the limits kick in, according to the Federal Elections Commission. Nationwide, limits vary from $127,200 to $3,946,100 based on the state’s voting age population. For U.S. House nominees in states with more than one representative, which includes Wisconsin, the spending cap is about $63,000.

The Republican plaintiffs – which include the National Republican Congressional Committee, Vice President J.D. Vance and former Rep. Steve Chabot – filed their case in 2022 and went to the Supreme Court after a federal appeals court upheld the spending limits.

The court will likely hear the case in the fall and release a decision in 2026 just as U.S. midterm elections kick into gear, according to a SCOTUSblog analysis. All eight of Wisconsin’s U.S. House members will face reelection, though neither senator will.

The limits the court will review only apply to federal elections for president or Congress, said Brendan Glavin, the research director for OpenSecrets, a Washington-based watchdog that tracks lobbying and campaign finance data. The limits do not apply to state-level candidates.

But “even with the limit, people can still give quite a lot of money to the party, and the party is still allowed to make independent expenditures,” Glavin said. “It’s not like anybody’s being shut down.”

Even if the Supreme Court struck down these limits, federal contribution caps would still apply. This year and next, the federal limits on how much an individual can give to a candidate committee is $3,500 per election. Individuals are also limited to a yearly donation of about $44,000 to a national party committee, according to the FEC.

But the coordinated campaign expenditure limits seal a loophole, Glavin said. The limits prevent donors from circumventing individual contribution caps by donating to a party that can essentially earmark the money for a specific candidate.

“When you take these coordinated limits away, then you’re essentially providing a bit of an end run around the contribution limits for an individual,” said Glavin. However, the Republican challenge “does fit into a broader trend of what we’ve seen over time.”

Campaign finance reform, including limits on coordinated campaign expenditures, were taken up in the 1970s and expanded in 2002, Glavin said. Since then, the reforms have been incrementally rolled back through court decisions like Citizens United v. F.E.C., the 2010 Supreme Court case that paved the way for unlimited political spending organizations called Super PACs.

Reversing the law isn’t likely to affect dark money or Super PAC spending, Glavin said. But you’d likely see more candidates and parties approaching a donor together.

“One ask, one check, that’s an easier way to get the donor,” Glavin said.

Thus, overruling precedent in this case would “tilt the balance of power back in favor of party committees,” Chergosky said. Though partisan loyalty is strong, Chergosky explained, party organizations have seen their influence weaken in light of outside groups like Super PACs.

Though none of Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate seats will be in play next year, Wisconsin’s 3rd Congressional District is set to be one of the most expensive House races in the 2026 cycle, Chergosky said.

The race will likely be a rematch between Republican incumbent Rep. Derrick Van Orden of Prairie du Chien and Democratic challenger Rebecca Cooke of Eau Claire, both of whom are “exceptional fundraisers,” Chergosky said.

As the number of competitive seats continues to decline, an “enormous amount of money gets funneled into fewer and fewer districts,” Chergosky said. But regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, there won’t be a shortage of money spent in the 3rd District, he said.

Wisconsin law provides an interesting contrast, Chergosky said. Here, state law limits how much individuals can give directly to candidates, but it does not limit the amount individuals can give to parties, nor does it limit how much party committees can give to state-level candidates.

“The comparison to the Wisconsin law is interesting because that has really motivated donors to give to state parties in a way that we just haven’t seen at the national level,” Chergosky said.

The piles of cash that fuel state and national politics has encouraged some Wisconsin legislators to propose resolutions amending the U.S. Constitution.

A Republican-backed proposal calls for an amendment that would also allow states to regulate spending in elections. A Democratic proposal calls for an advisory referendum to appear on Wisconsin ballots; it would ask voters whether they approve of amending the Constitution in order to reverse the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.

If two-thirds of the state legislatures in the country request it, Congress can convene to consider amending the Constitution. The joint resolutions, if successful, are necessary if Wisconsin wants Congress to convene a constitutional convention. A joint resolution must pass both chambers of the state Legislature; the governor’s signature is not required.

Lawmakers last acted on the Democrats’ proposal in May, and the most recent action on the Republican proposal was in June.

This article first appeared on The Badger Project and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

The Badger Project is a nonpartisan, citizen-supported journalism nonprofit in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin’s cash-flooded elections could get even more expensive 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.

Keri Rodrigues, president of the National Parents Union, speaks at a rally on Friday, March 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C, protesting the U.S. Education Department’s mass layoffs and President Donald Trump’s plans to dismantle the agency. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON  — The U.S. Department of Education has emerged as central in the struggle over control of the power of the purse in the nation’s capital.

Democrats in Congress are pushing back hard on the Trump administration’s freeze of $6.8 billion in funds for after-school programs and more at public schools, some of which open their doors a few weeks from now. California alone lost access to $939 million and every state is seeing millions of dollars frozen.

At the same time, the Supreme Court on Monday slammed the door on judicial orders that blocked the dismantling of the 45-year-old agency that Congress created and funds.

The nation’s highest court cleared the way for the administration to proceed, for now, with mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Department of Education that President Donald Trump ordered earlier this year.

In her scathing dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that “the majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive, but either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave.”

Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, wrote that the president “must take care that the laws are faithfully executed, not set out to dismantle them.”

“That basic rule undergirds our Constitution’s separation of powers,” she wrote. “Yet today, the majority rewards clear defiance of that core principle with emergency relief.”

Just a day after the Supreme Court’s decision, House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters at a Tuesday press conference that while he hasn’t had a chance to digest the Supreme Court’s order, he also knows that “since its creation, the Department of Education has been wielded by the executive branch.”

“I think that was the intent of Congress, as I understood it back then. We have a large say in that, but we’re going to coordinate that with the White House,” the Louisiana Republican said.

“If we see that the separation of powers is being breached in some way, we’ll act, but I haven’t seen that yet,” he added.

Letters from Democrats on frozen funds

Two letters from Senate and House Democrats demanding the administration release the $6.8 billion in federal funds for various education initiatives also depict the Education Department as a key part of the tussle between the executive branch and Congress.

Just a day ahead of the July 1 date when these funds are typically sent out as educators plan for the coming school year, the department informed states that it would be withholding funding for programs, including before- and after-school programs, migrant education, English-language learning and adult education and literacy, among other initiatives.

Thirty-two senators and 150 House Democrats wrote to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought last week asking to immediately unfreeze those dollars they say are being withheld “illegally.”

“It is unacceptable that the administration is picking and choosing what parts of the appropriations law to follow, and you must immediately implement the entire law as Congress intended and as the oaths you swore require you to do,” the senators wrote in their letter.

The respective top Democrats on the Senate Appropriations Committee and its subcommittee overseeing Education Department funding, Sens. Patty Murray of Washington state and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, led the letter, alongside Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.

In the lower chamber, House Democrats wrote that “without these funds, schools are facing difficult and unnecessary decisions on programs for students and teachers.”

“No more excuses — follow the law and release the funding meant for our schools, teachers, and families,” they added.

Georgia’s Rep. Lucy McBath led the letter, along with the respective top Democrats on the House Committee on Education and Workforce, its subcommittee on early childhood, elementary and secondary education and its panel on higher education and workforce development: Reps. Bobby Scott of Virginia, Suzanne Bonamici of Oregon and Alma Adams of North Carolina.

Democratic attorneys general, governors file suit

Meanwhile, a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration on Monday over those withheld funds, again arguing that Congress has the power to direct funding.

The states suing include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.

Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, both Democrats, also signed onto the suit filed in a Rhode Island federal court.

“Not only does Congress require that Defendants make funds available for obligation to the States, Congress, in conjunction with (Education Department) regulations, also directs the timing of when those funds should be made available,” the coalition wrote.

An analysis earlier in July by New America, a left-leaning think tank, found that the top five school districts with the greatest total funding risk per pupil include those in at least two red states: Montana’s Cleveland Elementary School District, Kester Elementary School District and Grant Elementary School District, along with Oregon’s Yoncalla School District 32 and Texas’ Boles Independent School District.

The think tank notes that program finance data was not available for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in an unsigned order to allow President Donald Trump to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration, for now, to proceed with mass layoffs and a plan to dramatically downsize the Education Department ordered earlier this year.

The decision from the nation’s highest court marks a major victory for President Donald Trump, who has sought to overhaul the federal role in education.

The order was unsigned, while Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, indicating a 6-3 decision.

The dissent, authored by Sotomayor, was scathing.

“The majority is either willfully blind to the implications of its ruling or naive,” she wrote. “But either way the threat to our Constitution’s separation of powers is grave.”

The Supreme Court’s order temporarily suspends lower court orders that: forced the agency to reinstate more than 1,300 employees gutted from a reduction in force, or RIF, effort; blocked the department from carrying out Trump’s executive order to dismantle the department; and barred the agency from transferring some services to other federal agencies.

In a statement Monday, Education Secretary Linda McMahon celebrated the decision, saying “today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies.”

“While today’s ruling is a significant win for students and families, it is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the U.S. Constitution,” she said.

“The U.S. Department of Education will now deliver on its mandate to restore excellence in American education. We will carry out the reduction in force to promote efficiency and accountability and to ensure resources are directed where they matter most — to students, parents, and teachers.”

A coalition of teachers, unions and school districts that sued over Trump’s order to eliminate the department and the mass layoffs said they were “incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump-Vance administration to proceed with its harmful efforts to dismantle the Department of Education while our case moves forward.”

“This unlawful plan will immediately and irreparably harm students, educators and communities across our nation. Children will be among those hurt the most by this decision. We will never stop fighting on behalf of all students and public schools and the protections, services, and resources they need to thrive,” they added.

Challenge from Democratic state AGs, unions

The labor and advocacy coalition and a slew of Democratic attorneys general each sued in March over some of the administration’s most consequential education initiatives.

One of the lawsuits comes from a coalition of Democratic attorneys general in Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and Wisconsin.

The other lawsuit was brought by the American Federation of Teachers, its Massachusetts chapter, AFSCME Council 93, the American Association of University Professors, the Service Employees International Union and two school districts in Massachusetts.

A Massachusetts federal judge consolidated the lawsuits and granted the states’ and groups’ preliminary injunction in May.

The administration appealed that decision, leading to a June decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit keeping in place the district court’s order.

The Trump administration then asked the Supreme Court to intervene. 

People gather for a "Save the Civil Service" rally hosted by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) on Feb. 11, the day President Donald Trump signed an executive order calling on DOGE to cut federal jobs. The Supreme Court said Tuesday those cuts could proceed, for now. (Photo by Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court late Tuesday lifted lower court injunctions that had blocked attempts by  President Donald Trump and his DOGE Service to restructure the federal government.

Labor unions, advocates and local governments that sued to block the cuts said the president exceeded his authority with the executive order by moving to dismantle the federal government without congressional approval.

A U.S. District Court judge in Northern California agreed and issued preliminary injunction to stall the executive order while the case was heard. A divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

But the White House pressed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that Trump’s executive order did not restructure the government but merely called for reductions in force, which it said is within the president’s power.

The Supreme Court agreed in a one-page order Tuesday, saying the government was likely to prevail on its claim and the injunction should be stayed while the case proceeded.

In a sharp, 15-page dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the district court judge had determined that the administration plan would not just cut jobs but would “fundamentally restructure” the federal government. He made a “reasoned determination” that the order should be stayed while the case was heard, she wrote.

“But that temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this Court’s demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this President’s legally dubious actions in an emergency posture,” she wrote.

“At bottom, this case is about whether that action amounts to a structural overhaul that usurps Congress’s policymaking prerogatives — and it is hard to imagine deciding that question in any meaningful way after those changes have happened,” she wrote. “Yet, for some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a brief concurrence, said she agreed with Jackson that the president does not have the authority to remake government without congressional approval. But she said the executive order and an implementing memo from the Office of Management and the Office of Personnel Management call for the changes to be “consistent with applicable law,” and it’s for lower courts to determine if they are.

A White House spokesperson called the decision a “another definitive victory” for the Trump administration.

“It clearly rebukes the continued assaults on the President’s constitutionally authorized executive powers by leftist judges who are trying to prevent the President from achieving government efficiency across the federal government,” the spokesperson, Harrison Fields, said in a written statement.

But labor unions, advocates and political leaders say that the decision undermines the value of federal employees, threatens the operation of federal services, and could even endanger American citizens.

In a statement Tuesday evening, the American Federation of Government Employees, along with the rest of the coalition of unions, nonprofits and municipalities bringing the suit against the administration, decried the Supreme Court’s decision as a “serious blow to our democracy.”

The coalition said the decision put “services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy.”

“This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution,” the statement read. “While we are disappointed in this decision, we will continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent and argue this case to protect critical public services that we rely on to stay safe and healthy.”

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore (D) said that as a state with a high concentration of federal workers, “any action against our federal employees is a direct strike against Maryland’s people and economy.”

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling on AFGE v. Trump will embolden President Trump in his mission to dismantle the federal government and threatens to upend the lives of countless public servants who wake up every day to deliver essential services and benefits that people rely on,” Moore said in a written statement. He noted that thousands of Maryland residents have already been laid off from federal agencies under the Trump administration.

In a post to X on Tuesday evening, U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-5th) wrote that Trump and OMB Director Russell Vought are continuing to “vilify and traumatize the patriots serving our nation, unconstitutionally reorganizing the federal government.”

“The Supreme Court’s decision today demonstrates that federal employees, their families and livelihoods, and the vital services they provide to the American people are of no concern to the Trump Administration,” Hoyer wrote. “I stand with our federal employees against these attacks.”

U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-8th) said in an X post that the ruling “will give Trump’s wrecking crew more awful ideas about sacking critical federal workers,” referencing layoffs at the National Weather Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who help notify state and local agencies about impending dangerous weather.

U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that layoffs could also put Americans at risk by “decimating essential public services” like food inspections and Social Security.

“As Justice Jackson put it in her dissent, ‘this was the wrong decision at the wrong moment, given what little this Court knows about what is actually happening on the ground,’” Van Hollen said in a statment. “She is right. The Court’s decision to allow this damage to be done before ruling on the merits shows how detached they are from the reality of the moment.”

Van Hollen said the administration’s plan “isn’t about efficiency, it’s about rigging the government to only benefit the wealthy and powerful special interests.”

“We are not done fighting in Congress, in the courts, and in our communities to defend the dedicated public servants who go to work on behalf of the American people day in and day out,” he said.

The Feb. 11 executive order directed federal agencies to prepeare for “large-scale reductions in force” and to work with members of the Department of Government Efficiency — the DOGE Service that was run at the time by billionaire Elon Musk — to develop a plan to reduce the size of the workforce. Military personnel were exempted, but virtually every other federal agency was affected.

The order was quickly challenged in court by labor unions, taxpayer and good government groups and by a hafl-dozen local governments: Harris County, Texas, Martin Luther King Jr. County, Washington, and San Francisco City and County, California; and the cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Santa Rosa, California.

They argued that the goals of the executive order far exceeded the president’s authority to reduce the size of agencies. Under the DOGE plan, they argued to the Supreme Court, “functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost, and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs.”

“There will be no way to unscramble that egg: If the courts ultimately deem the President to have overstepped his authority and intruded upon that of Congress, as a practical matter there will be no way to go back in time to restore those agencies, functions, and services,” their court filing said.

That was echoed by Jackson, who said the district court judge was in the best position to determine if the president’s order consisted of “minor workforce reductions” or whether it was a massive reorganization that overstepped executive authority.

“With scant justification, the majority permits the immediate and potentially devastating aggrandizement of one branch (the Executive) at the expense of another (Congress), and once again leaves the People paying the price for its reckless emergency-docket determinations,” she wrote.

Maryland Matters is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maryland Matters maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Steve Crane for questions: editor@marylandmatters.org.

Transgender rights opponents and a supporter rally outside of the U.S. Supreme Court as the justices hear arguments in a case on transgender health rights on December 04, 2024 in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court Wednesday upheld Tennessee's law banning gender-affirming care for minors. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Tennessee’s law prohibiting gender affirming care for minors, saying children who seek the treatment don’t qualify as a protected class.

In United States v. Skrmetti, the high court issued a 6-3 ruling Wednesday overturning a lower court’s finding that the restrictions violate the constitutional rights of children seeking puberty blockers and hormones to treat gender dysphoria. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the district court’s decision and sent it to the high court.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented, writing that the court had abandoned transgender children and their families to “political whims.”

Tennessee lawmakers passed the legislation in 2023, leading to a lawsuit argued before the Supreme Court last December. The federal government, under the Biden administration, took up the case for the American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and three transgender teens, their families and a Memphis doctor who challenged the law, but the U.S. Department of Justice under President Donald Trump dropped its opposition.

In its ruling, the court said that the plaintiffs argued that Senate Bill 1 “warrants heightened scrutiny because it relies on sex-based classifications.” But the court found that neither of the classifications considered, those based on age and medical use, are determined on sex.

“Rather, SB1 prohibits healthcare providers from administering puberty blockers or hormones to minors for certain medical uses, regardless of a minor’s sex,” the ruling states.

The ruling says the application of the law “does not turn on sex,” either, because it doesn’t prohibit certain medical treatments for minors of one sex while allowing it for minors of the opposite sex.

The House Republican Caucus issued a statement saying, “This is a proud day for the Volunteer State and for all who believe in protecting the innocence and well-being of America’s children.”

Senate Majority Leader Jack Johnson, who sponsored the bill, said he is grateful the court ruled that states hold the authority to protect children from “irreversible medical procedures.”

“The simple message the Supreme Court has sent the world is ‘enough is enough,’” Johnson said in a statement.

The Tennessee Equality Project, an LGBTQ advocacy group, expressed dismay at the decision: “We are profoundly disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to side with the Tennessee legislature’s anti-transgender ideology and further erode the rights of transgender children and their families and doctors. We are grateful to the plaintiffs, families, and the ACLU for fighting on behalf of more than 1.3 million transgender adults and 300,000 youth across the nation.”

The group said gender-affirming care saves lives and is supported by medical groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Medical Association.

The court also rejected plaintiffs’ argument that the law enforces “a government preference that people conform to expectations about their sex.”

The court found that laws that classify people on the basis of sex require closer scrutiny if they involve “impermissible stereotypes.” But if the law’s classifications aren’t covertly or overtly based on sex, heightened review by the court isn’t required unless the law is motivated by “invidious discriminatory purpose.”

“And regardless, the statutory findings on which SB1 is premised do not themselves evince sex-based stereotyping,” the ruling says.

In response to the outcome, Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti said Tennessee voters’ common sense won over “judicial activism” on a law spurred by an increase in treatment for transgender children.

“I commend the Tennessee legislature and Governor Lee for their courage in passing this legislation and supporting our litigation despite withering opposition from the Biden administration, LGBT special interest groups, social justice activists, the American Medical Association, the American Bar Association, and even Hollywood,” Skrmetti said.

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., criticized the ruling just moments after it came out after being asked about it during a press conference.

“This Supreme Court seems to have forgotten that one of their jobs is to protect individual rights and protect individuals from being discriminated against,” Schumer said. “It’s an awful decision.”

Democrats, he said, are “going to explore every solution,” though he didn’t elaborate.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the opinion: “This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The Equal Protection Clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best. Our role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the Fourteenth Amendment. Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.”

The ACLU said in a statement the decision is based on the record and context of the Tennessee case and doesn’t extend to other cases involving transgender status and discrimination.

Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project, called the ruling “devastating,” but despite the setback said transgender people still have health care options.

“The court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful,” Strangio said in a statement.

Tennessee Lookout is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Tennessee Lookout maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Holly McCall for questions: info@tennesseelookout.com.

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

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongly deported Maryland man who has now been returned to the United States, are pushing to keep his civil case open in pursuit of sanctions against the Trump administration for refusing to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court order to facilitate his return.

“Until the Government is held accountable for its blatant, willful, and persistent violations of court orders at excruciating cost to Abrego Garcia and his family, this case is not over,” according to the brief by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed Sunday.

“The executive branch’s wanton disregard for the judicial branch has left a stain on the Constitution,” they wrote. “If there is to be any hope of removing that stain, it must start by shining a light on the improper actions of the Government in this tragic affair and imposing meaningful remedies.”

The Trump administration on Friday moved to dismiss the civil suit filed in federal district court in Maryland, arguing it is moot after Abrego Garica landed in the U.S. to face criminal charges for “alien smuggling.”

A May 21 two-count Tennessee grand jury indictment, unsealed Friday, accused Abrego Garcia of conspiracy to unlawfully transport undocumented people for profit and the unlawful transportation of undocumented people between 2016 and 2025. The indictment also accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang.

His attorneys have disputed those charges.

Department of Justice lawyers also moved to deny Abrego Garcia bond, on the grounds that he is a flight risk and poses a danger to the community.

If convicted, Abrego Garcia could face up to 10 years in prison for each undocumented person transported.

“Accordingly, the sentencing exposure for the defendant – given the number of undocumented aliens involved – goes well beyond the remainder of the defendant’s life,” Robert E. McGuire, acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, wrote.

Deported to CECOT

The civil suit was brought by Abrego Garcia’s family after he was arrested by immigration officials in March and swiftly put on a deportation plane to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, despite having protections against removal to his home country since 2019.

Abrego Garcia’s arrest in March was not due to any criminal charges, but he was informed his immigration status had changed. The Trump administration has admitted his initial deportation to the brutal CECOT prison was an “administrative error,” but has maintained Abrego Garcia was in the custody of El Salvador and could not be brought back.

Trump officials, including President Donald Trump, repeatedly said that Abrego Garica would not return to the U.S. and the president seemed upset with the news of his return on Friday.

“He should have never had to be returned,” Trump said in a gaggle with reporters on Air Force One Friday night. “It’s a disaster.”

On Friday, Attorney General Pam Bondi thanked El Salvador President Nayib Bukele after the Trump administration presented an arrest warrant for Abrego Garcia.

‘Determined stalling campaign’

The Trump administration argued that because Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. on Friday, the civil case is moot.

But his attorneys argue that Abrego Garcia was not brought back to Maryland due to court orders – even as high as the Supreme Court – but “rather to Tennessee so that he could be charged with a crime in a case that the Government only developed while it was under threat of sanctions.”

“Two things are now crystal clear. First, the Government has always had the ability to return Abrego Garcia, but it has simply refused to do so,” according to the brief. “Second, the Government has conducted a determined stalling campaign to stave off contempt sanctions long enough to concoct a politically face-saving exit from its own predicament.”

Maryland District Court Judge Paula Xinis, who has handled the high-profile case since March, has granted Abrego Garcia’s attorneys until Wednesday to file their request for sanctions against the Trump administration.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys said they want to push forward with discovery documents because they “are finally on the verge of securing answers from knowledgeable officials about what the Government actually did or did not do to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return.”

Abrego Garcia will be arraigned before a federal court in Nashville on Friday.