Abrego Garcia ordered released pending trial on migrant smuggling charges
A US judge on Sunday ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the migrant returned to the US earlier this month after being wrongfully deported to his native El Salvador, released on bail pending his criminal trial on migrant smuggling charges.
However, the decision by US magistrate judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville, Tennessee does not necessarily mean Abrego, as he prefers to be known, will go home to his family. The judge had acknowledged at a June 13 court hearing that Abrego was likely to be placed in immigration detention even if he is released.
Abrego, a Maryland resident whose wife and young child are US citizens, was deported on March 15 to El Salvador, despite a 2019 immigration court ruling that he not be sent there because he could be persecuted by gangs. Officials called his removal an 'administrative error', but for months said they could not bring him back.
Critics of US President Donald Trump pointed to Abrego's case as evidence his administration was prioritising increased deportations over due process, the bedrock principle people in the US, whether citizens or not, can contest governmental actions against them in the courts. Trump, who has pledged to crack down on illegal immigration, said Abrego belongs to the MS-13 gang, an accusation his lawyers deny.
The justice department brought Abrego back to the US on June 6 after earlier securing an indictment charging him with working with at least five co-conspirators as part of a smuggling ring to bring immigrants to the US illegally.
Prosecutors said Abrego, 29, picked up migrants from the US-Mexico border more than 100 times, and transported firearms and drugs.
Abrego has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers said the Trump administration brought the charges to cover up their violations of Abrego's rights, and said the alleged co-conspirators cooperating with prosecutors should not be trusted because they are seeking relief from deportation and criminal charges of their own.
In her ruling on Sunday, Holmes said the government failed to show Abrego posed a danger to the community or was unlikely to appear in court, scheduling a hearing for Wednesday.
In a separate civil case, Greenbelt, Maryland-based US district judge Paula Xinis is investigating whether the Trump administration violated her order to facilitate Abrego's return from El Salvador. The US Supreme Court unanimously upheld the order.
Reuters
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
an hour ago
- Daily Maverick
Crossed Wires: Which billionaires have not bent the knee to Trump?
Much has been written about the surprising political pivot of erstwhile Democrat-supporting billionaires (many of them from tech) to the welcoming embrace of Maga after decades of support for liberalism. Bezos of Amazon, Musk of X/Tesla, Zuckerberg of Meta and Andreessen of Andreessen Horowitz have all shed blue cloaks since Trump's ascendance and donned bright red ones. Some others have shifted more quietly and pragmatically, perhaps making some allowance for the new winds of politics and a vengeful president. These are not normal times, of course. The current president is slashing and burning any entity that does not toe his thick red line, whether they are Harvard, CBS, NPR, Voice of America or Associated Press. Not to mention Canada, for God's sake. It is unprecedented. A large pair of balls is required if you want to refuse to pay obeisance – there are real consequences, as we have seen. It is with this in mind, and catalysed by the stunning success of self-declared socialist Zohran Mamdani in the New York Democratic mayoral candidate race last week, that I set out to find some tech bros who remain committed to good old liberal values and who continue to talk about climate change and renewables, as well as DEI and trans and immigrants' rights, as though Maga had never happened. It turns out that there are still quite a few – some more vocal and others keeping quiet. Perhaps these 'woke' holdouts will feel the wind at their backs again in 2028. Politics is fickle and forgetful, and public perception apt to balance on the wobbly fence of economic good times. No-man's-land Let's dispense with those who have been careful to stay in no-man's-land. Tim Cook of Apple has stayed partially out of the fray. He made the trek to Mar-a-Lago to dine with Trump early on, if only to say, 'We are as happy to work with you as with all other presidents.' Then he got into a small spat with Trump about where to manufacture iPhones, which argument seems to have dissipated, probably because Trump was informed that iPhones simply cannot be manufactured in the US at a competitive cost. How about Sergey Brin and Larry Page of Alphabet/Google? They are both longtime left-leaning centrists who have managed to stay out of the debate by saying little and keeping their personal opinions private. Jensen Huang of Nvidia, on the other hand, has found himself in a bit of a pickle. In 2016, he was quoted as saying, 'In general I prefer a more liberal government', but now, at the head of what is possibly the US's most politically sensitive technology, AI, he has to make nice with the administration that holds all the keys to sanctions and IP restrictions. Mind you, what with Nvidia's dominance in AI hardware, the Trump administration has to make nice with Huang too, so Trump and Huang exist in a politely necessary co-dependent relationship. They are not bros. Anti-Trump brigade This brings us to the others – the ones who clearly do not like Trump and will not bend the knee, the ones whose moral compass has not changed. (I am not passing judgment here on whether that moral compass's needle is pointed in the right direction, only that it seems not to have moved.) These include, most notably, Mark Cuban. Cuban made his fortune in streaming in the late '90s and has since diversified promiscuously. He is (like many self-made-billionaires-at-40) brash, opinionated and smart. He has accused Trump of being a 'snake oil salesman', of being scared of 'strong, intelligent women', of being 'a threat' to the US and of having 'fascist tendencies'. He has been critical of the Democrats, too, accusing them of 'not being able to sell shit' but he has also remained steadfastly outspoken on core left-wing planks like DEI. Then there is Reid Hoffman, co-founder of LinkedIn. His outspoken criticism of Trump caused him to consider leaving the US when Trump was re-elected (out of fear of retribution), but he has not done so and continues to actively support Democratic causes and candidates. And Reed Hastings, co-founder of Netflix, remains firmly 'progressive' except for his controversial support of private over public schooling, which has put him at odds with traditional Democrats. Finally, Satya Nadella of Microsoft. He is also seemingly untainted one way or the other, is unfailingly diplomatic and not given to political statements. But Microsoft's contributions tell a different story – they are 4:1 in favour of the Democratic Party. Billionaire influence The narrative in its entirety tells an interesting story. These people have enormous influence and deep pockets. Where they lean has direct influence on the direction of US governance, not only via their monetary contributions, but in terms of the messages they implicitly whisper to their large customer bases. So, why have some moved to the right, either publicly or privately? Mark Andreessen, in a recent podcast, described a meeting at the Biden White House with other tech executives and some of Biden's team. The subject was AI regulation. At the conclusion of the meeting, the executives went downstairs and huddled in the parking lot. One of them said, 'So I guess it's Trump for us?' They all agreed, at least in Andreessen's telling. For them, the issue was government regulation, nothing else. It was not the money, or at least not completely. It was what Andreessen and the others saw as clumsy and constraining government interference in the sort of innovation they believed to be a national imperative. It may be the case that some of these billionaires left their longtime political homes because Democratic policies pushed them away, but I suspect others moved to the right (and particularly toward Trump) because that's where the money is. Perhaps also because no one wants to deal with Trump's wrath. The only way we'll know for sure is if and when a new Democratic president is elected and the Zuckerbergs and Bezoses come crawling back or not. Only then will we know whether they are motivated by money or principle. DM Maverick451
TimesLIVE
11 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Trump wins as Supreme Court curbs judges, but may lose on birthright citizenship
The US Supreme Court's landmark ruling blunting a potent weapon that federal judges have used to block government policies nationwide during legal challenges was in many ways a victory for President Donald Trump — except perhaps on the very policy he is seeking to enforce. An executive order that the Republican president signed on his first day back in office in January would restrict birthright citizenship, a far-reaching plan that three federal judges, questioning its constitutionality, quickly halted nationwide through so-called 'universal' injunctions. But the Supreme Court's ruling on Friday — while announcing a dramatic shift in how judges have operated for years deploying such relief — left enough room for the challengers to Trump's directive to try to prevent it from taking effect while litigation over its legality plays out. 'I do not expect the president's executive order on birthright citizenship will ever go into effect,' said Samuel Bray, a Notre Dame Law School professor and a prominent critic of universal injunctions, whose work the court's majority cited extensively in Friday's ruling. Trump's executive order directs federal agencies to refuse to recognise the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is a US citizen or lawful permanent resident. The three judges found that the order likely violates citizenship language in the US constitution's 14th amendment. The directive remains blocked while lower courts reconsider the scope of their injunctions, and the Supreme Court said it cannot take effect for 30 days — a window that gives the challengers time to seek further protection from those courts.
TimesLIVE
12 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Court cancels Israel PM Netanyahu's trial hearings this week
The Jerusalem District Court cancelled this week's hearings in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's long-running corruption trial, accepting a request the Israeli leader made citing classified diplomatic and security grounds. It was unclear whether a social media post by US President Donald Trump influenced the court's decision. Trump suggested the trial could interfere with Netanyahu's ability to join negotiations with the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Iran. The ruling, seen by Reuters, said that new reasons provided by Netanyahu, the head of Israel's spy agency Mossad and the military intelligence chief justified cancelling the hearings. Netanyahu was indicted in 2019 on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust — all of which he denies. He has cast the trial against him as an orchestrated left-wing witch-hunt meant to topple a democratically elected right-wing leader. On Friday, the court rejected a request by Netanyahu to delay his testimony for the next two weeks because of diplomatic and security matters after the 12-day conflict between Israel and Iran, which ended last Tuesday. He was due to take the stand on Monday for cross-examination. 'It is INSANITY doing what the out-of-control prosecutors are doing to Bibi Netanyahu,' Trump said in a Truth Social post. He said Washington, having given billions of dollars worth of aid to Israel, was not going to 'stand for this'. A spokesperson for the Israeli prosecution declined to comment on Trump's post. Netanyahu on X retweeted Trump's post and added: 'Thank you again, @realDonaldTrump. Together, we will make the Middle East Great Again!' Trump said Netanyahu was 'right now' negotiating a deal with Hamas, though neither leader provided details, and officials from both sides have voiced scepticism over prospects for a ceasefire soon. On Friday, the Republican president told reporters he believed a ceasefire was close. Interest in resolving the Gaza conflict has heightened in the wake of the US and Israeli bombings of Iran's nuclear facilities.
