“This was an administrative error,” James Percival, a #DHS official appointed by #Trump, wrote to his colleagues on March 30. “(Not that we should say publicly.)”
Tricia McLaughlin, DHS propagandist, said in a statement that #KilmarAbregoGarcia’s #deportation was part of “a highly sensitive counterterrorism operation with national security implications.” [that’s some hardcore lying.]
The discussions do not directly capture conversations about the case inside the #WhiteHouse or at the level of the *relevant* #cabinet secretaries. But the documents show how #Trump ofcls, from the start, tried to keep #KilmarAbregoGarcia out of the reach of the American #judicial system.
#KilmarAbregoGarcia remains locked up in #ElSalvador despite #court rulings demanding that the #US work to secure his release. And he got there in the 1st place through what everyone agreed was a mistake.
In the end, a snr #DOJ lawyer, Erez Reuveni, who counseled bringing #KilmarAbregoGarcia back to the US, was fired for what AG #PamBondi claimed was a failure to “zealously advocate on behalf of the United States.”
Documents obtained by NYT laying out the debate among leading lawyers at the #State, #Justice & #HomelandSecurity Depts reveal new details of the admin’s early efforts to *develop a strategy* for a case that has become a major test of #Trump’s mass #deportation effort.
In the days before the govt’s error became public, #DHS ofcls discussed trying to portray #KilmarAbregoGarcia as a “leader” of the violent street gang #MS13, even though they could find NO EVIDENCE to support the claim. They considered ways to nullify the original order that barred his #deportation to #ElSalvador. They sought to downplay the danger he might face in one of that country’s most notorious prisons.
‘Keep Him Where He Is’: How #Trump Ofcls Were Sent Scrambling to Cover Their Asses in the #KilmarAbregoGarcia Case
A Maryland man’s deportation to #ElSalvador set off a fierce debate among ofcls of 3 cabinet agencies, despite agreement there had been a mistake.
The Trump admin had deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a prison in El Salvador, even though a judge had issued a ruling expressly prohibiting that from happening.
#law #immigration #Rendition
#GiftArticle
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/us/politics/trump-abrego-garcia-el-salvador-deportation.html?unlocked_article_code=1.I08.piTL.n27B6-Ia0Kk7&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare
#SCOTUS recites the facts in detail, making clear that the government was about to deport hundreds of people to #ElSalvador without ANY real opportunity to file #HabeasCorpus lawsuits in challenge, a direct violation of their previous order - & mentions #KilmarAbregoGarcia.
![We understood the Government to assert the right to remove the detainees as soon as midnight central time on April 19. The Government addressed the detainees' allegations on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed that day. Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-766, ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next day "would be consistent with" its due process obligations, and it "reserve[d] the right" to take such action. Id., at 26; see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that "tomorrow .. starts at 12:01 a.m."). Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA-including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply 1a-5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Application To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11-20.](https://s3.masto.ai/media_attachments/files/114/519/441/979/502/714/original/9f88393c7df4c057.png "We understood the Government to assert the right to remove the detainees as soon as midnight central time on April 19. The Government addressed the detainees' allegations on April 18 only at an evening hearing before the District Court for the District of Columbia, where the detainees had separately sought relief. The Government guaranteed that no putative class members would be removed that day. Tr. of Proceedings in J. G. G. v. Trump, No. 25-cv-766, ECF Doc. 93, p. 9. But it further represented that, in its view, removal of putative class members as soon as the next day \"would be consistent with\" its due process obligations, and it \"reserve[d] the right\" to take such action. Id., at 26; see id., at 16 (explanation by the court that \"tomorrow .. starts at 12:01 a.m.\"). Evidence now in the record (although not all before us on April 18) suggests that the Government had in fact taken steps on the afternoon of April 18 toward removing detainees under the AEA-including transporting them from their detention facility to an airport and later returning them to the facility. See Supp. App. to Reply 1a-5a. Had the detainees been removed from the United States to the custody of a foreign sovereign on April 19, the Government may have argued, as it has previously argued, that no U. S. court had jurisdiction to order relief. See Application To Vacate Injunction in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949 (Apr. 7, 2025), pp. 11-20.")
Cooper points to Wilkinson line in 4th Circuit opinion that the government's claim that there's nothing more to be done to facilitate return is "shocking" to the conscience & that indicates that there's #misconduct
Wrapping up, #Xinis thanks everyone.
She announces a 10 minute break before the parties go into a closed session to discuss some of the matters that remain under seal.
End of 
Guynn: Govt's claim is that he is a member of MS-13 & he was removed on that basis, is basis of detention in #ElSalvador bc the Salvadoran govt believes he's MS-13 too
#Xinis: Maybe we need to table this for sealed hearing.
Guynn agrees.
Xinis: Anything else to talk about in open court before we get into the nitty gritty in close session?
Cooper, for Abrego Garcia, interjects to raise issue about government #misconduct.
Now we're on the subject of whether #KilmarAbregoGarcia is being held pursuant to an extradition treaty (because of govt's claim that he's being held under domestic custody).
Guynn says he thinks that info has been provided, he wasn't extradited.
Guynn: Basis of him being detained in #ElSalvador also doesn't go to #misconduct.
#Xinis: C'mon, you took over this case. You read that transcript.
There's a back-&-forth between Guynn & Xinis. Guynn eventually agrees to assume for the sake of argument that Garcia was unlawfully detained/removed.
But says even if that's assumed, there's still no showing of govt #misconduct on that basis
#Xinis interjects: No, no, no. During that first hearing the government admitted that Mr. Abrego Garcia was unlawfully detained.
There was an unlawful detention, she says.
There's a looooooooong, awkward pause.
Guynn says he can't speak to what happened at that hearing in which the govt admitted that #KilmarAbregoGarcia was wrongfully removed, which led to the admin firing #DOJ atty Erez Reuveni.
Guynn addresses the govt #misconduct exception. Says not clear from Cooper's discussion what misconduct at issue. Failure to provide info? Failure to comply w/court's order? Etc
#Xinis: Or all of the above? [exactly]
Guynn starts talking about the circumstances of #KilmarAbregoGarcia's removal.
"That was an administrative error" that he was removed to a country he shouldn't have been removed to, but that doesn't mean there was misconduct.
Cooper: Only have ~30 docs that are relevant vs 500 that have been withheld based in part on #DeliberativeProcess #privilege
The final factor is harm to the govt, which I think is for the government to show. They haven't filed affidavits or explained why disclosure would harm process, etc
That's it from Cooper on deliberative process.
Guynn up to respond.
After Cooper argues that #DeliberativeProcess #privilege doesn't apply given #misconduct by the govt, he turns to another exception: the "compelling need" exception.
That squarely overrides the invocation of the privilege here, he tells Judge #Xinis.
Cooper: This discovery is relevant & important. Govt hasn't pointed to alternative sources of info. There's been no substance produced of information that's key & critical here.
Guynn: Think would need to brief that. But I don't want to concede that #intent is at issue.
#Xinis asks attorney for #KilmarAbregoGarcia to come up & address the "government misconduct" exception to #DeliberativeProcess #privilege.
[Because the privilege is not absolute & can be overcome by a showing of govt #misconduct]
Up for Abrego Garcia this time is Jonathan Cooper
Cooper: From the beginning this has been a case about govt misconduct
#Xinis: Intent to facilitate, intent to comply w/my order.
Guynn: When you refer to #intent, what are you referring to?
Xinis: Can give you cases I've been thinking about. There's a proposition that #DeliberativeProcess #privilege doesn't really apply when intent is at issue
Gives hypo: re discrimination claim by fired employee. if decision making is privileged, can never get to the issue of wrongful termination.
Guynn: That's why there are so many privileged documents here that's why hard to ID document custodians, etc.
#Xinis: Almost impossible to determine from the log on what basis you're claiming attorney client privilege. Eg, if you have 18 people CC'ed on an email. without more info, I can't assess.
I don't believe the #DeliberativeProcess #privilege is as broad in this case because the govt's intent is at issue.
Guynn: The govt obviously had a dispute over what facilitate means
#Xinis: What's interesting about that is that you had to have the Fourth Circuit tell you that. "My decision wasn't good enough."
Guynn says there's more context to set the stage but he thinks that would need a sidebar.
There was question about what defendants had to do, should do, in response to court's order in this case. So lots of attorneys were involved.
Rossman: If I gave your honor what I have of meaningful #discovery, it'd be nothing
#Xinis announces that she wants to move on to discussion of the #DeliberativeProcess #privilege. Wants to talk about the #law on that, then move the hearing under seal to discuss further.
Guynn is up first to discuss.
