Kilmar Abrego Garcia's lawyers ask judge to delay release from jail over deportation fears
U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in Nashville is expected to rule soon on whether to free Abrego Garcia while he awaits trial on human smuggling charges. If the Salvadoran national is released, U.S. officials have said he would be immediately detained by immigration authorities and targeted for deportation.
Abrego Garcia became a prominent face in the debate over President Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador in March. That expulsion violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shields Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faces threats of gang violence there.
The administration claimed that Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, although he wasn't charged and has repeatedly denied the allegation. Facing mounting pressure and a U.S. Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face the smuggling charges, which his attorneys have called 'preposterous.'
The smuggling case stems from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding, during Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Police in Tennessee suspected human smuggling, but he was allowed to drive on.
U.S. officials have said they'll try to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that isn't El Salvador, such as Mexico or South Sudan, before his trial starts in January because they allege he's a danger to the community.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville ruled a month ago that Abrego Garcia is eligible for release after she determined he's not a flight risk or a danger. Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked her to keep him in jail over deportation concerns.
Holmes' ruling is being reviewed by Crenshaw after federal prosecutors filed a motion to revoke her release order.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys initially argued for his release but changed their strategy because of the government's plans to deport him if he is set free. With Crenshaw's decision imminent, Abrego Garcia's attorneys filed a motion Sunday night for a 30-day stay of any release order. The request would allow Abrego Garcia to 'evaluate his options and determine whether additional relief is necessary.'
Earlier this month, U.S. officials detailed their plans to try to expel Abrego Garcia in a federal court in Maryland. That's where Abrego Garcia's American wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, is suing the Trump administration over his wrongful deportation in March and is trying to prevent another expulsion.
U.S. officials have argued that Abrego Garcia can be deported because he came to the U.S. illegally around 2011 and because a U.S. immigration judge deemed him eligible for expulsion in 2019, although not to his native El Salvador.
Following the immigration judge's decision in 2019, Abrego Garcia was released under federal supervision, received a federal work permit and checked in with ICE each year, his attorneys have said. But U.S. officials recently stated in court documents that they revoked Abrego Garcia's supervised release.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys in Maryland have asked U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to order the federal government to send Abrego Garcia to that state to await his trial, a bid that seeks to prevent deportation.
His lawyers also asked Xinis to issue at least a 72-hour hold that would prevent immediate deportation if he's released from jail in Tennessee. Xinis has not ruled on either request.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 minutes ago
- The Independent
RFK Jr. looks to boot panel that decided which HIV and cancer screenings would be free: report
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is reportedly planning to remove all the members of an influential health task force that helps determine what preventative care services insurers must cover for free, after removing all members of a vaccine advisory board last month. Kennedy wants to clean house at U.S. Preventative Services Task Force next because he believes its 16 members have become too 'woke,' The Wall Street Journal reports. Under 2010's Affordable Care Act, the task force makes evidence-based, public recommendations on a variety of treatments, ranging HIV prevention to prenatal care to mental health, that insurers must cover at no cost to patients. Health and Human Services has said the secretary hasn't made a final decision regarding the task force. The Independent has contacted the agency for comment. Kennedy's reported dissatisfaction with the group comes after the American Conservative magazine accused the task force of being a 'festering corner of woke bureaucracy' in an article earlier this month. 'The task force is packed with Biden administration appointees devoted to the ideological capture of medicine,' the author argued, pointing to 'sinister' recent task force actions committing to removing racial inequities in health care and using more inclusive language around gender. Earlier this month, a July meeting of the task force was postponed. At the time, a letter from over 100 health organizations warned about the politicization of the task force's work. 'The loss of trustworthiness in the rigorous and nonpartisan work of the Task Force would devastate patients, hospital systems, and payers as misinformation creates barriers to accessing lifesaving and cost effective care,' the letter reads. 'When something works well and helps inform doctors about how to take care of their patients, to postpone the task force's work just doesn't make any sense,' Dr. Bobby Mukkamala, president of the American Medical Association, told The New York Times after the meeting was postponed. 'This flies in the face of what is good for the country's health.' In June, the Supreme Court upheld the task force's ability to recommend free coverage for preventative services, in the face of a challenge from individuals and businesses objecting to the body's recommendation regarding HIV prevention medication. Concern over the fate of the task force comes after Kennedy removed all the members of a vaccine advisory board, replacing them with some members who share the secretary's vaccine skepticism.
The Guardian
9 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Grenade missing from scene of blast that killed three LA police officers
A grenade is missing from the scene of an explosion that killed three people at a Los Angeles law enforcement training facility, authorities said. Three veteran deputy sheriffs died in the explosion last Friday, the LA county sheriff's department's largest loss of life in a single incident since 1857. Sheriff Robert Luna said the men were working on two 'military-style' grenades when one detonated. The other is unaccounted for, Luna said, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which is investigating the blast. Luna said authorities have X-rayed special enforcement bureau vehicles, searched the blast area and examined office spaces and the gym, but have not found the second grenade. 'You get the drift. We have looked at everything out there that we possibly could,' he said, adding that no one from the public has had access to the area. The grenades were seized at an apartment complex in Santa Monica a day before the explosion, Luna said. He said detectives X-rayed the devices and believed they were inert. The devices were then taken to be 'destroyed and rendered safe' at the Biscailuz training facility, where one exploded. Luna said he has called for an independent review of the policies and practices of the arson and explosives team, and has already changed how they handle these types of situations. 'All future explosive devices, inert or not, will be treated as if they are all live and will be disposed of accordingly,' he said. It was not known whether the grenades had any connection to the military. The men killed were detectives: Joshua Kelley-Eklund, Victor Lemus, Detective William Osborn. They served 19, 22 and 33 years in the department respectively. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is expected to publish a final report on their deaths in September.
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Trump bids to release Epstein grand jury files – what secrets might they hold?
As Donald Trump reels from political fallout related to his justice department's handling of Jeffrey Epstein investigation files, the US president has directed his loyal attorney general, Pam Bondi, to 'release all Grand Jury testimony with respect to Jeffrey Epstein, subject only to court approval'. It is an effort at damage control for a White House now engulfed in endless speculation – especially among Trump's previously devoted Maga base – about the extent of Trump's relationship with the late, disgraced sex trafficker and wealthy financier who killed himself in jail in 2019. Justice department attorneys quickly filed paperwork in Manhattan and south Florida federal courts requesting unsealing of grand jury testimony for Epstein. Justice department officials have also asked a New York judge to release grand jury transcripts for Ghislaine Maxwell – Epstein's sometimes girlfriend and longtime confidante who in 2021 was convicted of sex trafficking for luring teenage girls into his orbit. A grand jury is a panel that decides whether evidence presented by prosecutors shows 'probable cause' that someone committed a crime, and whether they should be tried. Should the grand jury, which is not the trial jury, find that there is sufficient evidence, an indictment will be issued. But veteran US attorneys, including those who have represented Epstein victims, told the Guardian that any release of grand jury transcripts around Epstein and Maxwell might not provide much insight into Epstein's crimes and whether others were involved in abusing minors – or in covering up his years of predation of young girls and women. The lawyers, however, insist that meaningful information does exist in yet-to-be released Epstein files held by federal law enforcement authorities from multiple investigations into Epstein. Whether the political will – and legal ability – exists to release any or all of those files remains to be seen. 'Grand juries serve two functions: to indict and to investigate. The transcripts may contain testimony of victims or cooperating witnesses if the grand jury was investigating Epstein,' Neama Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, and a former federal prosecutor, said of grand jury processes. The grand jury transcripts could include graphic and explicit evidence, but they could also include more pro forma information about the actions of Epstein and Maxwell, who is serving jail time in Florida. 'If they were indicting Epstein, we can expect to see law enforcement witnesses summarizing the evidence of probable cause to support the charges. That would probably be less interesting, and similar to the factual allegations in the Epstein indictment,' Rahmani said. He added: 'There is likely much more salacious evidence out there than the grand jury transcripts. 'The FBI interview summaries and internal Department of Justice memoranda probably contain the juiciest details. The grand jury transcripts are just a small part of the picture. If Bondi was serious about transparency, she would make public the complete Epstein files, subject to redactions to protect the privacy rights of the victims.' Top lawyer Gloria Allred, who has represented multiple Epstein victims, said government files should be made public with several exceptions, such as redaction of victims' names and identifying information, attorney-client communications and material depicting abuse. 'I think there is information that the government could release, such as texts, emails and other electronic communications of Jeffrey Epstein and anyone with whom he communicated. In addition, any communications on behalf of Mr Epstein made by his employees who may have played a part in recruiting or dealing with victims at the request of Mr Epstein and/or Ms Maxwell could be released,' Allred said. 'All evidence in the file of the United States attorney for the southern district of New York which was gathered for the prosecution of Mr Epstein, with the exceptions which I have listed previously, could be released.' Allred believes 'all files, both federal and state that reflect the investigation and potential prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein in Florida should also be made public'. Thorough investigations of Epstein were conducted in New York and Florida, Allred pointed out, and those investigations would be in those files. Spencer T Kuvin, chief legal officer of GoldLaw and an attorney for Epstein victims, voiced similar sentiments. 'The real documents that the public needs to see are the documents maintained by the FBI and Department of Justice. They have thousands of hours of videotapes and investigative memos and documents regarding the data that was seized at his homes,' he said. Kuvin said that unsealing grand jury testimony was a 'good first step' but limits information to four victims over whom Epstein was charged in New York. 'I am aware that the FBI had interviewed over 40 girls during their investigations. Where are those interviews, where are those reports? 'The abusers should be disclosed to the public so that we may all know who they are,' Kuvin also said, insisting that victims' privacy must be protected in such a process. He called on Trump to act. 'This administration could end the dispute tomorrow by the president signing an executive order demanding the release of all the material in the custody of the FBI and DoJ,' Kuvin said. 'Either Trump has the power to do this, or he must admit that he is not as powerful as he has professed to be to the public and his Maga followers.' Trump's current political woes stem from his backtracking on previous vows to release the Epstein files. On the campaign trail, he vowed to declassify the files, but then attracted scathing criticism when his justice department released a memo claiming that there was no 'incriminating' client list within the tranche of documents related to Epstein. The justice department's claim that they did not find evidence implicating third parties has further fanned the flames of suspicion, especially as last week the Wall Street Journal reported that Bondi had warned Trump that his name appears in the files. A smattering of reports highlighting Trump's friendship with Epstein several decades ago – which reportedly ended following a real estate dispute, several years before the late financier admitted to a state-level charge of soliciting prostitution from a minor in Florida – has proved yet another political minefield. Even if federal authorities and Trump drag their feet in releasing these documents, it is possible that new civil litigation could eventually force them to do so raising the prospect of yet more political scandals heading Trump's way. Maria Farmer, an Epstein survivor who in 1996 told authorities he and Maxwell were abusing minors including her sister, is suing the federal government over their handling of these claims. Farmer's suit alleges that the FBI 'chose to do absolutely nothing'. Farmer also claims that the FBI agent taking her call 'hung up on her, and no one at the FBI attempted to follow up with her or pursue her valid and serious allegations, most of which continued for many years, if not decades, with wide-ranging tragic consequences.' If this litigation progresses, both sides would exchange evidence related to the claims in a process called discovery. While discovery is typically subject to a confidentiality agreement, and solidified by a court order, information from this exchange could come up in subsequent court papers that are public. 'What this lawsuit could reveal is what the FBI and the department did and did not do, what they failed to do – they failed to do their job,' Farmer's attorney, Jennifer Freeman, special counsel at Marsh Law Firm, told the Guardian. Freeman noted, for example, that she has a redacted set of pages from what appears to be a 2006 field interview with Farmer, during which an FBI agent went to her home and spoke with her. Freeman said she had some 20 pages of handwritten notes, 'many of which are redacted'. She said: 'That's the kind of information we need. It's redacted. I've been trying to get this information for years now, through Foia [Freedom of Information Act] requests, but we've been stymied every time.' Neither the White House nor Department of Justice commented.
