Lincoln Hills, a detention facility the state has ordered closed by 2021. (Photo courtesy of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections)

Rian Nyblom, 18, was sentenced to five years in prison Wednesday after pleading guilty to charges stemming from the death of a staff member at Wisconsin’s infamous juvenile prison, the Lincoln Hills School for Boys. Nyblom pleaded guilty in April to two counts of being party to a crime of battery by a prisoner, a deal which reduced felony murder charges, and dropped an additional battery charge, against the teen, the AP reported. 

Prosecutors say that in June 2024, tensions arose between a then- 16-year-old Lincoln Hills resident and a female guard who the teen felt was abusing her power. The 16-year-old threw a cup of what he believed was soap on her, and proceeded to punch her repeatedly. When the teen ran out into the courtyard 49-year-old staff member Corey Proulx followed. After Proulx scuffled with  the teen, he sustained a head injury after falling to the pavement. Proulx died a day later. 

Nyblom allegedly told investigators that he knew of the 16-year-old’s issues with the female guard. Shortly before the fighting began Nyblom retrieved extra soup and conditioner, he told investigators, and gave it to the 16-year-old. Nyblom said he hadn’t witnessed the attack on the female guard, but did see the teen hit Proulx. 

Nyblom was sentenced to five years in prison, with 405 days counted as time served. He was transferred to the Lincoln County Jail last year. The 18-year-old had been sent to Lincoln Hills after being charged with misdemeanor criminal damage to property and disorderly conduct. To those charges, AP reported, Nyblom pleaded no contest and was found guilty in May. 

The teen to whom Nyblom supplied the soup and conditioner, who is now 17, faces one count of first-degree reckless homicide, and two counts of battery by a prisoner, and is charged as an adult. He has pleaded not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, with a trial expected to begin in February. It’s possible that the teen’s lawyers will attempt to move the case back to juvenile court.

As of Aug. 1, there were 80 boys in Lincoln Hills, four girls in the Copper Lake School, and 26 youth at the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Facility, according to the Department of Corrections’ latest population report. That’s slightly up from the 78 boys held at Lincoln Hills in late April. The higher population number at the juvenile prison was noted by the Lincoln Hills’ court-ordered monitor around that same time. The monitor also highlighted enduring staffing vacancies and, in the past, had complained about staff treating students poorly, even exhibiting racist behaviors. 

In August 2024, following Proulx’s death, Republican lawmakers wrote letters to DOC Sec. Jared Hoy saying that Lincoln Hills had become less safe, and blamed the consent decree for limiting the ability of staff to use force against juvenile residents.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Minister of Justice and Public Security Héctor Villatoro, right, accompanies Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, center, during a tour of the Terrorist Confinement Center (CECOT) on March 26, 2025 in Tecoluca, El Salvador. (Photo by Alex Brandon-Pool/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — House Democrats sent a letter Thursday to the heads of Homeland Security and the State Department seeking more information about the financial agreement between the United States and El Salvador to detain more than 200 men at a notorious megaprison.

“Congress has the right and the obligation to conduct oversight over the executive branch and determine what deals our government has struck with a foreign dictator to imprison individuals seized in the United States in an effort to place them beyond the reaches of our court,” according to the letter by California’s Robert Garcia, Maryland’s Jamie Raskin, Mississippi’s Bennie Thompson and New York’s Gregory Meeks.

In March, the Trump administration flew several planes to El Salvador containing 238 men removed either under an 18th-century wartime law, known as the Alien Enemies Act, or because they are immigrants who had final orders of removal and are citizens of El Salvador. The men arrived at the notorious prison known as CECOT.

The letter challenges the Trump administration’s position publicly and in courts that any individuals removed to El Salvador to be detained are no longer in U.S. custody and any court order to facilitate the return of wrongly removed immigrants cannot be fulfilled.

According to court documents filed last week, testimony from Salvadoran officials noted that those individuals removed and detained at CECOT were considered in the jurisdiction of the U.S. government.

“The actions of the state of El Salvador have been limited to the implementation of a bilateral cooperation mechanism with another state, through which it has facilitated the use of the Salvadoran prison infrastructure for the custody of persons detained within the scope of the justice system and law enforcement of that other state,” according to the court document submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union.

That document was submitted in a court case that relates to the Trump administration’s use of the wartime law, and whether or not officials violated a federal judge’s order to return the planes to the U.S. The planes still landed in El Salvador.

“Court filings last week suggest the Administration misled federal judges, Congress, and the American people about the legal status of individuals the U.S. government has spirited away to El Salvador and who are being held in torture prisons like Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo (CECOT),” the Democrats wrote. 

The Democrats addressed the letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asking to see the agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to accept non-Salvadoran citizens and information on the men detained at CECOT.

“This document indicates that the Department of Justice has misled federal courts in assertions regarding the agreement with El Salvador,” wrote the  Democrats, who sit on House committees on Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs, Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform.

$15 million payment to El Salvador

The State Department is paying up to $15 million to house immigrants removed from the U.S. at CECOT, but the agreement has not been made publicly available. Former State Department officials and foreign policy aides have raised concerns that the State Department payments violate a human rights law.

The Leahy Law bars financial assistance to “units of foreign security forces” — which can include military and law enforcement staff in prisons —  facing credible allegations of gross human rights violations, such as CECOT.

The State Department has denied any wrongdoing.

The Trump administration has resisted court orders to return wrongfully deported men from CECOT, such as in the high-profile deportation case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and a separate case out of Baltimore, Maryland concerning another wrongly deported man sent to the megaprison. Abrego Garcia detailed how he experienced physical and psychological torture while at CECOT.

Noem visited CECOT earlier this year, and said the prison would be one of the Trump administration’s tools amid its aggressive immigration crackdown. 

The Waupun prison sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood (Photo | Wisconsin Examiner)

Most of those speaking at the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) online public hearing on community supervision – parole, probation and extended supervision – said the system is  too rigid. Instead of helping people successfully integrate back into society, they said, the system creates a tripwire of rules that can easily be broken and result in too many people being ordered back to prison when supervision is revoked.

The public hearing on July 8 took up proposed rules to amend the DOC’s Administrative Code because of a law passed in April 2014, Act 196, that directs the creation of a system of appropriate short-term sanctions for violation of conditions of supervision. The law sets out  eight criteria, including minimizing the impact on the offender’s employment and family, and offers rewards for those complying with conditions of supervision.

Of the 18 members of the public who spoke at the hearing, most addressed the need for implementing the spirit of the 2014 law to create a less burdensome system of community supervision and reduce the number of revocations that in 2023 represented over 30% of those entering prison and in 2024 reached nearly 60%. Update: DOC disputes the 60% figure, saying about half of those included in that number are people whose revocation was related to the commission of new crimes.

Several people who had been on community supervision or were still serving on supervision also spoke and asked that the DOC do more than just provide accountability and make the system less oppressive and also offer resources, such as help obtaining housing.

One of the first to speak was Tom Gilbert, an advocate for WISDOM, a statewide network working on reform of the prison and criminal justice systems and other social justice issues. Gilbert, whose son has twice had supervision revoked, has been pushing since 2019 for the DOC to implement Act 196.

“Act 196 is a good law passed with broad bipartisan support, and it calls for a cultural shift in how the Department of Corrections administers its supervision programs,” he said. 

“For many years, WISDOM has called on the department to implement the law and thereby provide a solid alternative to thousands of revocations each year,” he added. 

However, Gilbert said, when he read DOC’s proposed rules for implementing the law he was upset that the DOC only stated the eight criteria without creating or describing a system for “new and revised policies and practices.”

Gilbert accused the DOC of not wanting to fulfill the intent of the law.

“This cannot be an oversight. It is a conscious omission,” he said. “To me, it signals that the DOC is not committed to creating a system of short-term sanctions, that it is not serious about shifting the community corrections program from an operation that sabotages the successful reentry of people into their communities to an operation that is focused on healing individuals, families and communities by providing the treatments and supports needed to accomplish that goal.”

Gilbert challenged the DOC’s current protocol of calling 90 days of jail a short-term sanction because, he said, even 60, 30, 21, or 14 days in jail has a negative impact on employment and family.

He also challenged the DOC’s perspective that the rules revision would only impact those on community supervision, vendors and DOC staff.

 “The decisions you and your agents make every day regarding people under your supervision widely affect families, employers, health care providers, social service providers, schools — in  other words, whole communities and this whole state,” Gilbert said. “The proposed rules should be revised by adding back the language from Act 196 that explains its whole purpose — creating a system of short-term sanctions.”

Sean Wilson, senior director of organizing and partnership of Dream.Org, a national non-profit working on social justice issues, was also critical of the proposed rule for offering no description for short-term sanctions.

“There’s no real short-term sanctions framework,” Wilson said. “Instead of building a system that redirects people before they spiral back into incarceration, this proposal simply restates the existing law; meanwhile, revocations without new convictions in Wisconsin still account for 40% of our prison admissions.” (The rate rose from 40% early in 2024 to nearly 60% at the end of the year)

“Here in this state, there are no guardrails to prevent over-punishment,” Wilson added. “The proposal leaves full revocation on the table for things like substance abuse, missed check-ins, minor violations that are far too often treated as major. There’s no real focus on rehabilitation. There’s no clear investment in helping people reintegrate successfully, and no mention of support, supportive services, trauma-informed care, or reentry pathways.”

He said the rules are “vague about how sanctions will be applied, who will review them, and how racial disparities, which are deeply embedded in our system, will be addressed.”

He also raised concerns about private contractors offering supervision, creating a “financial incentive that undermines fairness and accountability.”

Carol Rubin, a former administrative judge, also encouraged the implementation of Act 196 and was also critical of the proposed rules not fleshing out the intent of the 2014 law.

“I want to express my dismay that DOC has delayed issuing formal rules for Act 196 for 11 years, despite being ordered to issue rules in 2014 by the Wisconsin Legislature,” she said. “In the meantime, thousands of individuals have been denied the benefit of a real, short-term sanction system with trained agents that could have stabilized their new lives in the community.”

Rubin said the DOC should provide examples of how short-term sanctions should be employed to minimize the impact on employment.

“For a low violation, consider imposing a short-term sanction that does not restrict the hours that a client could be available for employment, such as a verbal or written reprimand,” she said. “For a medium or high violation, consider a brief house arrest or weekend jail sanction of two days or less that will not interfere with the client’s current or future hours of employment; if appropriate, a weekend home arrest could be repeated.”

Liz Monroe noted that the DOC’s manual for Evidence Based Response to Violations (EBRV) has two mentions of using rewards, including stating that rewards are “more effective than only using sanctions” and that incentives and rewards are “helpful for compliance and positive behaviour and that there should be at least four rewards for every sanction.”

As a reward for compliance, she encouraged reducing the supervision time, such as 30 days of compliance resulting in 30 fewer days on supervision.

Barbie Jackson, vice president of MOSES, an affiliate of WISDOM, asked for a description that “clearly defines short-term sanctions to assure that they focus on helping people avoid harmful behaviors and fulfill societal obligations, minimize disruption of the impacted person’s employment, minimize the effect on the impacted person’s family and establish incentives and rewards for compliance and positive behavior.”

Jeremy Dings, who said he had been originally sentenced to five years in prison but ended up serving 12 because of two revocations, talked about how he was unable to help his family during a health crisis after he broke a rule and was revoked. He was allso not allowed to attend his mother’s funeral.

“People on supervision have families, too, just like all of you,” he said. “Revocation for rule violation ends the person’s employment and their ability to support their family and themselves.”

Marianne Oleson, operations director for Ex Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO), noted she had been on supervision for eight years and still had 18 more years to serve.

“I’ve rebuilt my life. Started over with nothing, and dedicated myself to helping others,” she said, “but despite everything I’ve done, I wake up every day with 18 more years of supervision ahead of me, not because I’ve reoffended, not because I’m a danger, but because the system has failed to evolve with science.”

She contended that recent research on community supervision says the ideal period is three to five years.

Oleson noted that her clients include many who have been revoked and sent back to prison for a technical rule violation. 

She said the present system often does not have the goal of rehabilitation but “surveillance disguised as support.”

“People on supervision are trying to live,” said Oleson. “We’re parenting, working, healing and giving back, but we live in fear that one misstep will erase years of progress. You have a chance to change that, to lead with justice instead of fear. Please rewrite this to reflect what the courts, the research and those of us directly impacted are telling you. Our futures matter. Please treat us like they do and we do.”

JenAnn Bauer of West Bend who had been in prison and on supervision said that “excessive supervision” creates challenges for rebuilding a life.

“Every job, every lease, every new agent and every step forward comes with extra scrutiny and extra risk,” she said. “I have done everything the system has asked of me. I pay taxes, I’ve reintegrated, I’ve contributed. These things don’t just affect the formerly incarcerated. They affect our families, our children and future generations. When a parent is stuck under financial pressure or the constant threat of being sent back for a technical violation, it creates instability that reaches far beyond one individual, it holds entire families hostage and in survival mode, and that affects the health, safety and future of whole communities and our entire state.”

Robert Thibault, vice president of Prison Action in Milwaukee, said he had been on supervision for 15 years and had experienced a “huge inconsistency” in how supervision was administered depending on the parole or probation officer (PO), adding the attitude of a PO over the interpretation of “arbitrary rules” could result in a revocation.

Meah Flowers of Madison talked of having family members going in and out of prison and the disruption that revocation causes. She encouraged implementing Act 196 to help families.

Eric Howland said there is an expectation that those coming into community supervision obtain employment, housing and a positive social network, but a 90- or 60-day jail sentence for a supervision violation negatively impacts those goals.

Why 11 years?

The DOC has not yet responded to questions from the Examiner on why it has taken 11 years to implement Act 196.  

Update: DOC spokesperson Beth Hardke responded to this story on Tuesday, July 15: “The idea that 60% of Wisconsin’s prison population is incarcerated for rules violations is simply untrue but it’s a common misinterpretation of the data.” She pointed to DOC’s prison admissions dashboard which shows 27.3% of people admitted to Wisconsin prisons over a one-year period are described as “revocation new sentence” while 32.5% described as “revocation only.” Taken together, those numbers represent about 60% of admissions. But, Hardke writes, about half of them were convicted of a new crime resulting in a new sentence, not for violating supervision rules. This story has been updated to include that response. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Protesters outside the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Greenbelt rally on April 4, 2025, in support of Kilmar  Abrego Garcia, calling for him to be returned to the U.S. (Ariana Figueroa/States Newsroom).

GREENBELT, Maryland — A top U.S. immigration official testifying in federal court Thursday did not give details of the Trump administration’s plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he is released from pre-trial detention next week in Tennessee.

Thomas Giles, the assistant director for enforcement and removal operations at Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was noncommittal about how the agency would handle Abrego Garcia if he is released from jail in Tennessee where he awaits trial on federal charges, saying officials could not consider the question until he’s in ICE custody.

“There’s been no decision made as he’s not in ICE custody,” Giles said.

Department of Justice attorneys have said they would seek Abrego Garcia’s removal again, because he has a final order of removal, but have not detailed the process for that deportation, raising concerns of a lack of due process in the closely watched case that were not answered by Giles’ testimony Thursday.

Giles appeared after U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration on Monday to produce a witness to detail the plan for Abrego Garcia’s removal.

The government is likely to pursue either a revocation of the deportation protections the El Salvador national and longtime Maryland resident has had since 2019 that bar deportation to his home country, or removal to a country other than El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia was wrongly removed in March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador where he says he faced psychological and physical torture.

ICE detainer

Giles said that ICE placed a detainer on Abrego Garcia last month, meaning the agency requested the U.S. Marshals to notify ICE when he will be released so immigration officials can detain him. Abrego Garcia could be released July 16 after a pretrial hearing that day in Tennessee.

The Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face federal charges of human smuggling that stemmed from a 2019 traffic stop. Abrego Garcia has denied the charges.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys said in court Thursday that they found out Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. through media reports and they were given no information by the Trump administration.

DOJ attorneys said that Abrego Garcia will be removed from the U.S. before his trial in Tennessee is complete.

Restraining order considered

Attorneys for Abrego Garcia said Thursday they are concerned he will again be removed without due process or the ability to challenge his removal to another country if he fears he will experience harm or persecution. 

Earlier in the week, they pressed for Xinis to have Abrego Garcia brought back to Maryland, rather than remain in Tennessee. 

Xinis is still mulling that request from Abrego Garcia’s attorneys. This week, she also denied the Department of Justice’s move to dismiss the case as moot, because Abrego Garcia had been returned to the U.S.

Xinis said Thursday she is considering issuing a temporary restraining order if Abrego Garcia is released on pre-trial detention. The order would last for 48 business hours and bar immigration officials from removing Abrego Garcia to a detention center outside of Tennessee or from the U.S.

She also called for a hearing on Friday at 9 a.m. ET on the temporary restraining order.

Vague answers

Sascha Rand, an attorney representing Abrego Garcia in the immigration case in Maryland, grilled Giles on how familiar he was with Abrego Garcia’s case.

Giles said that he had not directly overseen Abrego Garcia’s case and had about four hours to prepare for Thursday’s hearing.

Rand asked Giles which country Abrego Garcia would be removed to if not El Salvador.

Giles said that if Abrego Garcia is removed to a third country, it would take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks to determine which country.  

Giles said that Mexico is one country that accepts nationals from other countries – including El Salvador – and has diplomatic assurance that an individual removed won’t face harm.

He added that South Sudan is also a country that the Trump administration has deemed acceptable to send deportees to.

In a ruling last month, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to move forward with removing eight men from different nationalities to South Sudan, which recently experienced a civil war. The U.S. State Department advises against traveling to the country.

Xinis asked Giles if Mexico, “at a minimum,” would be a country Abrego Garcia could be removed to.

Giles said that was possible.

Rand asked if South Sudan was a possibility.

Giles said that “we have removed people to South Sudan.”

Rand then asked Giles multiple times which path the Trump administration was considering for Abrego Garica, either deportation to a third country, or trying to remove the 2019 bar on removal to El Salvador.

“Do you have any actual knowledge of which one of these tracks Mr. Abrego Garcia might be put on next Wednesday?” Rand asked.

Giles said because Abrego Garcia is not in ICE custody, a discussion on the options for his removal is not happening. He said those determinations will be made once Abrego Garcia is in ICE detention.

Giles added that it’s also unclear where Abrego Garcia will be held in ICE detention, as it’s based on available bed space, meaning Abrego Garcia could be transferred anywhere in the U.S.

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. 

A Wisconsin nonprofit is pushing to get books back into prisons after a DOC directive ending the effort. | Getty Images Creative

The nonprofit Wisconsin Books to Prisoners (WBTP) and the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC) are carrying out a pilot project that involves sending used books to prisoners. 

This might lead to the nonprofit regaining the ability to send used books to incarcerated people in DOC facilities around the state. Meanwhile, WBTP says it has experienced an issue with packages of new books, which were not banned, being sent back. 

Last year, the department enacted a used book ban. The DOC has cited concerns about drug smuggling, leading to scrutiny of how effective the ban might be and whether the impact on prisoners’ access to books was justified. Camy Matthay of Wisconsin Books to Prisoners told the Examiner in September that the ban hobbles the project. 

The agency said in late September that it used to make an exception for WBTP to send used books “due to the organization being based in Wisconsin with leadership who were responsive and willing to work with DOC.” Wardens and librarians could accept used books from certain trusted sources for donation to the institution libraries. 

In late September, the DOC said that under a  policy announced  in January, the department could no longer accept used books from anyone — including WBTP. The department said  “that policy is now being enforced when it comes to library donations as well as books sent to persons in our care.”

In March, the Examiner reported on concerns regarding mail between incarcerated people and attorneys, including the question of the accuracy of the drug tests used on materials coming into prisons.

According to incident reports and a statement from the DOC in late September, three separate shipments in February and March 2024 that were allegedly from Wisconsin Books to Prisoners had multiple items testing positive for drugs.  

In an email to Wisconsin Books to Prisoners in August, Sarah Cooper, former administrator of the DOC’s division of adult institutions, said the concern was not with WBTP but with people who would impersonate the nonprofit. 

“Unfortunately, those who wish to send drugs into the prisons do so under the guise of legitimate agencies, organizations and even legal entities,” Cooper said. 

WBTP said the group expects to be formally approved to resume shipping new and used donated books to people incarcerated throughout Wisconsin upon the successful completion of the second phase of the pilot. 

“We are cautiously optimistic that WBTP will be back or close to our full operations by September 2025,” the nonprofit said in a statement Friday. 

WBTP said it has participated in a pilot program at Oakhill Correctional Institution over the past few months. The nonprofit said that during phase one, it sent three packages of books, one third of which were used books. The books were added to the library collection, making them available for checkout by those who requested them. 

The pilot program aims to allow DOC to test and refine its screening process for donated reading materials to ensure safety, DOC communications director Beth Hardtke said in an email to the Examiner.

Starting July 1, WBTP will be able to send requested materials directly to individuals at Oakhill Correctional Institution instead of the institution library, Hardtke said. 

“The goal is to eventually allow WBTP to send reading materials to individuals at any DOC facility — safely,” Hardtke said. She mentioned a safety concern about people coming into contact with intoxicating substances. 

In a statement in late September, the department said staff reviewed contraband incident reports that facility staff had flagged as drug-related between Jan. 1 2019 and Sept. 19, 2024. 

The DOC said that not all incident reports flagged as drug-related turn out to be drug-related, and that “some drug-related incidents recorded through a medical record or conduct report may not be reflected in these numbers.” 

The department said there had been 214 incidents of drugs being found on paper from Jan. 1 2019 to Sept. 18, 2024  “including in books and letters shipped to DOC facilities.”

WBTP said it was told by DOC that it would continue mailing brand-new books to meet requests made by readers. Many of those packages have been returned to them, WBTP said. The status of some packages is not known, and the nonprofit is investigating the issue. In its statement, WBTP said it has “engaged in discussions” with DOC administrative staff, “in opposition to their policy banning the donation of used reading materials.”

“WBTP remains committed to pursuing every possible avenue to challenge this censorship,” the nonprofit said. 

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Reading Time: 8 minutes

Wisconsin incarcerates more people per capita than the majority of countries in the world, including the United States. 

Wisconsin Watch and other newsrooms in recent years have reported on criminal charges against staff following prison deaths, medical errors and delayed health care and lengthy prison lockdowns linked to staffing shortages in Wisconsin prisons.

The state prison population has surged past 23,000 people, with nearly triple that number on probation or parole. Meanwhile, staff vacancies are increasing again across the Department of Corrections.

A reader called this situation a “mess” and asked how we got here and what can be done to fix it.

The road to mass incarceration

The first U.S. prison was founded as a “more humane alternative” to public and capital punishment, prison reform advocate and ex-incarceree Baron Walker told Wisconsin Watch. Two years after Wisconsin built its first prison at Waupun in 1851, the state abolished the death penalty.

For the next century, Wisconsin’s prison population rarely climbed above 3,000, even as the state population grew. But as America declared the “War on Drugs” in the 1970s and set laws cracking down on crime in the ‘80s and ‘90s, Wisconsin’s prison population began to explode.

“In the early 1970s … the rise in incarceration corresponded fairly closely with increases in crime,” said Michael O’Hear, a Marquette University criminal law professor. “The interesting thing that happened in both Wisconsin and the nation as a whole in the ‘90s is that crime rates started to fall, but imprisonment rates kept going up and up.”

According to O’Hear, Wisconsin was late to adopt the “tough-on-crime” laws popular in other states during that era. But by the mid-1990s, the state began to target drug-related crime and reverse leniency policies like parole. 

“There was a period of time in which Milwaukee was just shipping bazillions of people into prison on … the presumption of being a dealer with the possession of very small amounts of crack cocaine,” UW-Madison sociology Professor Emerita Pamela Oliver said. She cited this practice as one of the reasons Wisconsin’s racial disparities in imprisonment are the worst in the nation.

Starting in the late 1990s and 2000s, Wisconsin’s “truth-in-sentencing” law, which requires people convicted of crimes to serve their full prison sentences with longer paroles, resulted in both a cycle of reincarceration and a large prison population full of aging inmates with low risk of reoffending.

Then in 2011, the anti-public union law known as Act 10 caused a mass exodus of correctional officers as working conditions in the state’s aging prisons continued to deteriorate.

Extended supervision

Along with mandating judges impose fixed prison sentences on people convicted of crimes, truth-in-sentencing requires sentences to include an inflexible period of “extended supervision” after a prison term ends. This is different from parole, which is a flexible, early release for good behavior and rehabilitation.

Judges often give out “extraordinarily long periods of extended supervision,” according to Oliver, at least 25% of the incarceration itself by law and often multiple times that in practice. To her, it is simply a “huge engine in reincarceration.”

According to DOC data, of the 8,000 people admitted to Wisconsin prisons in 2024 more than 60% involved some kind of extended supervision violation, known as a “revocation.” Half of those cases involved only revocation.

Extended periods of supervision after release from prison do little to improve public safety, research suggests. The long terms “may interfere with the ability of those on supervision to sustain work, family life and other pro-social connections to their communities,” Cecelia Klingele, a University of Wisconsin-Madison Law School professor of criminal law, wrote in a 2019 study examining 200 revocation cases.

Substance abuse problems contributed to technical revocations in an “overwhelming majority” of cases, Klingele wrote, because “agents have few options to impose meaningful sanctions other than imprisonment.” 

“Fewer, more safety-focused conditions will lead to fewer unnecessary revocations and more consistency in revocation for people whose behavior poses a serious threat to public safety,” Klingele added. 

Streamlining the standard supervision rules would require the Legislature to act.

Oliver attributes Wisconsin’s high rates of revocations to parole officers failing to reintegrate people into society in favor of playing “catch-somebody-offending.”

“You get reincarcerated, (and) all that time (in prison) doesn’t count,” Oliver said. “You can stay on a revolving door of incarceration and extended supervision for five times longer than your original sentence.”

People behind the statistics

The factors behind both crime and incarceration are complex, with socioeconomic factors relating to poverty, race, location and more increasing the chances of contact with the judicial system. 

According to O’Hear, overall crime rates began increasing in the ‘90s during the War on Drugs in part due to prosecutors “charging cases and plea bargaining more aggressively.” 

A study by the Equal Justice Initiative found that plea bargaining perpetuates racial inequality in Wisconsin prisons. White defendants are 25% more likely than Black defendants to have charges dropped or reduced during plea bargaining, and Black defendants are more likely than whites to be convicted of their “highest initial charge(s).”

In the 53206 Milwaukee ZIP code where Baron Walker grew up, nearly two-thirds of Black men are incarcerated before they turn 34. Recalling his youth, Walker said “it seemed like almost all the males in my family were incarcerated at one point in time.”

During his time in the prison system, which included stints at Waupun, Columbia and Fox Lake correctional institutions, Walker struggled with accessing his basic needs.

“Their water came out black, dirty. It had a stench,” Walker said. “It sinks into your clothing, even when you wash them … you consume this water, it’s what they cook the food with.”

Water quality in Wisconsin prisons has been a consistent concern of inmates and activists in the past 15 years. Despite multiple investigations into lead, copper and radium contamination at these maximum- and medium-security prisons, recent reports found unhealthy radium levels in the drinking water — with no free alternatives.

“They would microwave the water (at Fox Lake) and the microwaves would spark up and blow out,” WISDOM advocate Beverly Walker, Baron’s wife, told Wisconsin Watch. “The water at the time was $16 to just get a case of six bottles of water … it so ridiculously high.”

EX-incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) of Wisconsin peer support specialist Vernell Cauley’s issues within Wisconsin prisons were more personal. His daughter died during his intake into Dodge Correctional Institution, and Cauley wasn’t allowed a temporary release to attend her funeral. 

“It had some deep effects on me,” he said. “Some of the things I didn’t realize I had until I was actually released, when you understand that you didn’t get the proper time to grieve.”

Cauley was put in solitary confinement during that time, and for three months total over the course of his prison stay. According to DOC data, the average stay in solitary confinement across Wisconsin prisons is 28 days, though that’s down from 40 days in 2019.

Furthermore, inmates who struggle with mental illness are overrepresented in solitary confinement across U.S. prisons. Multiple inmates have committed suicide due to long stints of solitary, particularly during recent prison lockdowns.

Working conditions

Joe Verdegan, a former Green Bay correctional officer of nearly 27 years, said he and most of his coworkers “conducted (them)selves pretty professionally” and “always had a lot of respect” for inmates. This respect went both ways, he said, because guards built relationships with inmates for decades at their post.

According to Verdegan, being a correctional officer used to be a “career job” where “nobody left.” Despite the dangers and odd work hours of the post, the guards had a strong union and good benefits and could climb up the ladder as they gained seniority. 

But it “all went to hell” after Act 10 was passed.

Senior staff left in droves, leaving remaining guards with 16-hour shifts and “bad attitudes” that perpetuated the worsening work culture, Verdegan said. Religious, medical and recreational time was cut for inmates due to staffing shortages, and the respect between correctional officers and prisoners dwindled.

“When you’re not getting out for chapel passes or any of that kind of stuff, it just builds that hostility,” he said.

The changes caused Verdegan to retire from corrections at 51, earlier than planned. He and many of his friends took financial penalties by retiring from the Department of Corrections early and ended up working other jobs at bars, grocery stores and factories. 

They also went to funerals. Many former coworkers “drank themselves to death” due to their experiences within corrections, Verdegan said.

Coming home

In 1996, when Walker was sentenced to 60 years in prison for his role in two bank robberies, no one expected him to serve more than a third of his sentence —  not even the victims. 

But when truth-in-sentencing passed, mandating judges to impose definite, inflexible imprisonment lengths on people convicted of crimes, Walker’s hopes for an early release quickly disintegrated.

Walker was released from prison in 2018 on probation, an alternative to incarceration offered on condition of following specific court orders. He was released after being denied parole six times in the seven years since he first became eligible.

In the aftermath of Walker’s imprisonment, he and Beverly have had their “most beautiful days,” along with some trials. Walker said he has struggled to adjust to independent living, and he would have been at a “complete loss” for adapting to 20 years of technological change if he hadn’t studied it in prison.

“You are programmed and reprogrammed to depend on someone for your anything and everything, whether it be your hygiene products, the time you shower, your mail, your bed, your bedding, your food,” Baron said. “Now, suddenly, you cross out in(to) society … and you’re told now as an adult you’re responsible for your independence, your bills, your clothing, your hygiene, your everything.”

Walker has also struggled with finding employment, despite earning “a litany of certifications and degrees” in food service, plumbing, welding, forklift operating and more while incarcerated. He said the DOC’s reentry programs need “overhaul” and more companies should be encouraged to hire formerly incarcerated people.

As of 2021, Wisconsin spent $1.35 billion per year on corrections, but only $30 million on re-entry programs. Less than a third of the re-entry funding is allocated for helping ex-prisoners find jobs — even though studies show employment significantly decreases the likelihood of reoffending.

Looking ahead 

To Oliver, a significant barrier to solving issues within the prison system is changing sociopolitical attitudes.

“People imagine that if you’re punitive enough, you will have no crime,” Oliver said. “It’s really hard to get the general public to realize you ultimately reduce crime more by creating the social conditions that help people live productive lives without committing crime.”

O’Hear believes a key solution to problems within Wisconsin prisons is addressing the “mismatch” between large prison populations and available resources. He argues that “for a couple generations now, there’s been more of a focus on cutting taxes than on adequately funding public agencies” like the DOC.

O’Hear also said that judges should consider shorter prison sentences because “most people age out of their tendency to commit crimes” and that there should be “more robust mechanisms,” such as more compassionate release and parole laws for elderly inmates.

“We have people in prison in their 50s and their 60s and their 70s and even older who are really past the time when they pose a real threat to public safety,” O’Hear said. “Health care costs alone for older prisoners are a tremendous burden on the system, and they’re contributing to overcrowding.”

The Walkers are continuing their advocacy for prison reform by opening up the Integrity Center, which supports incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals with navigation, re-entry, employment assistance and more. They also advocate permanently shutting down aging prisons such as Green Bay and Waupun correctional institutions.

“All of our people who are eligible for release should be released, and people who are eligible to move into minimum facilities should be moved,” Beverly Walker said. “We don’t need any new prisons if we just utilize what we have.”

Verdegan said that he doesn’t believe the Legislature will ever pass a bill closing Green Bay in his lifetime and that “both political parties are to blame for this mess they’ve created with the Wisconsin DOC.” “Throwing money” at corrections officer positions will not fix staffing vacancies, he said, without the guarantee of eight-hour workdays and adequate job training.

He and Cauley both said supporting the mental health of prisoners before and after incarceration is key. Verdegan supports training staff to work with mentally ill prisoners. Cauley would rather see prison abolished altogether.

“Most people who end up in prisons, they have things going on mentally, these issues not getting met,” Cauley said. “Prison only makes people bitter, more angry … you know, it traumatizes them.”

Correction: This story was updated to reflect the average stay in solitary confinement is 28 days. Also 60% of the more than 8,000 people entering prison in 2024 involved a revocation, but half of those cases also involved a new crime.

Why is Wisconsin’s prison system such a ‘mess,’ and what can be done to fix it? 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.

Flags of the 11 Native American tribes of Wisconsin in the Wisconsin State Capitol. (Wisconsin Examiner photo)

At a state prison in Stanley, Wisconsin, participants in a Native American-focused group take part in traditional cultural practices.

According to Ryan Greendeer, executive government relations officer with the Ho-Chunk Nation, Stanley Correctional Institution’s chaplain recently reached out to the tribe with requests for the group’s programming.  

The chaplain wanted teaching materials, as many materials in the current selection were old. He said that men learn songs and Native language with the materials, as well as history and culture.

The chaplain said the men are eager to learn more about all things Native, according to Greendeer. He was also seeking a larger pipe bowl and poles to help build a new lodge. The pipe has a history of ceremonial use.  

The prison’s annual report for fiscal year 2024 mentions a Native American smudge and drum group. The report says that each month, several religious organizations and volunteers come in to hold various services, and the list includes “Sweat Lodge (Native American).”

There were 79 American Indian or Alaska Native people at Stanley Correctional as of April 30, according to the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (DOC). 

Gov. Tony Evers’ budget recommendations for corrections included a tribal liaison position for the DOC. The liaison would be responsible for working with Native American tribes and bands on the agency’s behalf.

Each of the governor’s cabinet agencies has already set at least one staff member to be a tribal liaison. The governor’s proposal would create a new position, set aside for the job of tribal liaison for corrections. 

Evers also proposed creating a director of Native American affairs in the Department of Administration and tribal liaisons in several other agencies, including the Department of Justice and Department of Natural Resources. 

“Gov. Evers’ commitment has been—and always will be—to ensure that the state maintains strong partnerships with the Tribal Nations by recognizing and respecting the needs and perspectives of the Nations and Indigenous people,” Britt Cudaback, communications director for the governor’s office, said in an email.

The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee removed the proposed positions in May, along with hundreds of other items proposed by Evers. 

“Unfortunately, [Evers] sends us an executive budget that’s just piles full of stuff that doesn’t make sense and spends recklessly and raises taxes and has way too much policy,” Joint Finance Committee co-chair Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) said in May.

Tribes already work with the state, including the Oneida Nation, which is located in northeast Wisconsin. The tribe told the Examiner that it continues to work with the state to make sure incarcerated Native Americans have proper access to culturally based practices and resources. 

With a tribal liaison that can help navigate the corrections system, the tribe’s efforts to make sure resources are provided and distributed appropriately make better progress, the tribe said. 

“These efforts will continue whether or not a tribal liaison position exists, although the impact on incarcerated individuals who use culturally based resources may be greater as efforts take longer,” the tribe said. 

The Oneida Nation said it “supports tribes’ efforts to ensure incarcerated members maintain access to appropriate support services as provided by tribal, state, and federal laws.”

Maggie Olson, communications coordinator for the St. Croix  Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin, said the tribe is not located close to the corrections facilities where their tribal members are incarcerated. This is a significant barrier, she said. 

“It would be nice to be able to have a better handle on where our people are within the system to ensure they are having their spiritual and cultural needs met,” Olson said in an email to the Examiner. “It is much easier (at this time) to meet religious needs (think Christianity) within the correctional system than it is to meet the spiritual and cultural needs of Native Americans within the system.”

A great first step would be having a dedicated person who can build relationships with incarcerated Native Americans, she said.

In a statement, the tribe said the liaison “would be a start to developing and enhancing tribal input with State initiatives.” The tribe said it wants to work with the DOC on access to supportive services in county jails. 

Olson said she met DOC Secretary Jared Hoy at an event on June 5 and that they had a great discussion about the potential benefits of a tribal liaison at the agency.

“With the uncertainties surrounding federal funding, we are hopeful state funding will be increased to tribal programs in Wisconsin,” Olson said.

The tribe’s criminal justice work involves partnership with the DOC. In the St. Croix Tribal Reintegration Program, case managers work with tribal members before and after their release from prison or jail, the tribe said. The program has a memo of understanding with the Department of Corrections, providing guidance for working relationships between tribal reentry and probation.

All of the governor’s cabinet agencies have consultation policies that say how they will work with tribal governments. Agencies and tribal elected officials have annual consultation meetings to talk about programs, laws and funding that may affect the tribe. 

Discussions at the annual state-tribal consultation tend to be about high-level policy, but they can delve into specifics, Greendeer said. He gave an example related to tribal members who are on probation or parole. 

“For example, a topic that keeps coming up is re-entry programming for enrolled tribal member offenders,” Greendeer said. “A concern discussed at a recent consultation was that probation/parole officers might not consider tribal norms/values, citing a lack of eye contact in saying a client is disengaged or disconnected.”

The co-chairs and vice-chairs of the Joint Finance Committee did not respond to requests for comment. DOC communications director Beth Hardtke did not answer a question from the Examiner about the responsibilities and goals of the tribal liaison position.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

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.

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.