Latest news with #U.S.ImmigrationsandCustomsEnforcement
2 days ago
- Politics
US will try to deport Abrego Garcia before his trial, Justice Department attorney says
GREENBELT, Md. -- The U.S. government would initiate deportation proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he's released from jail before he stands trial on human smuggling charges in Tennessee, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in Maryland on Monday. The disclosure by U.S. lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House, who said last month that Abrego Garcia would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him. Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia's American wife is suing the Trump administration over his mistaken deportation in March and trying to prevent him from being expelled again. Guynn said U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Abrego Garcia once he's released from jail and send him to a 'third country' that isn't his native El Salvador. However, Guynn said he didn't know which country that would be. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis said trying to determine what will happen to Abrego Garcia has been 'like trying to nail Jello to a wall." She scheduled a hearing for Thursday for U.S. officials to explain possible next steps if Abrego Garcia is released. Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint over President Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious megaprison in his native El Salvador. The Trump administration claimed he was in the MS-13 gang, although Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime and has repeatedly denied the allegation. When the Trump administration deported Abrego Garcia, it violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded him from being sent to his native country. The judge had determined that Abrego Garcia likely faced persecution by local gangs that had terrorized him and his family and prompted him to flee to the U.S. Facing increasing pressure and a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the U.S. last month to face federal human smuggling charges. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers without luggage. Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty. His lawyers told a judge that some government witnesses cooperated to get favors regarding their immigration status or criminal charges they were facing. They've also accused the Trump administration of bringing Abrego Garcia back 'to convict him in the court of public opinion' with the intention of deporting him before he can defend himself at trial. A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Abrego Garcia, determining he's not a flight risk or a danger. But she agreed to keep Abrego Garcia behind bars at the request of his own attorneys, who raised concerns the U.S. would try to immediately deport him. In court documents, Abrego Garcia's lawyers cited 'contradictory statements' by the Trump administration. For example, Guynn told Xinis on June 26 that ICE planned to deport Abrego Garcia, though he didn't say when. Later that day, DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told The Associated Press that the Justice Department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X that day that Abrego Garcia "will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he's committed.' Abrego Garcia's attorneys asked Xinis to order the government to take him to Maryland upon his release from jail, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for more than a decade, working construction and raising a family. Xinis is still considering that request. Guynn told the judge on Monday that she doesn't have the jurisdiction to decide where Abrego Garcia would be detained. Xinis responded by asking why she couldn't order an 'interim step' to ensure that Abrego Garcia isn't 'spirited away again.' Anrew Rossman, an attorney for Abrego Garcia, said he should be given notice and an opportunity to challenge his removal in court. 'That's the baseline of what we're asking for,' he added. Meanwhile, Xinis denied the Trump administration's motion to dismiss the lawsuit over Abrego Garcia's mistaken deportation. The government had argued the litigation was moot because it returned him to the U.S. Xinis said 'the controversy' isn't over simply because he's back.
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
U.S. will try to deport Abrego Garcia before his trial, Justice Department attorney says
GREENBELT, Md. — The U.S. government would initiate deportation proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he's released from jail before he stands trial on human smuggling charges in Tennessee, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in Maryland on Monday. The disclosure by U.S. lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House, who said last month that Abrego Garcia would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him. Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia's American wife is suing the Trump administration over his mistaken deportation in March and trying to prevent him being expelled again. Guynn said that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Abrego Garcia once he's released from jail and send him to a 'third country' that isn't his native El Salvador. Guynn said he didn't know which country that would be. Abrego Garcia became a flash point over President Trump's immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious megaprison in El Salvador. The Trump administration violated a U.S. immigration judge's 2019 order that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs that terrorized his family. Facing increasing pressure and a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia last month to face federal human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have characterized the case as 'preposterous' and an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial. But she agreed last week to keep Abrego Garcia behind bars at the request of his own attorneys. They had raised concerns that the U.S. would try to immediately deport him, while citing what they say were 'contradictory statements' by the Trump administration. For example, Guynn had told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland on June 26 that the U.S. government planned to deport Abrego Garcia to a 'third country' that isn't El Salvador. But he said there was no timeline for the deportation plans. Later that day, Justice Department spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told the Associated Press that the department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X that day that Abrego Garcia 'will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he's committed.' Abrego Garcia's attorneys have asked Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland upon release from jail in Tennessee, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland for more than a decade, working in construction and raising a family with his wife. Xinis is still considering Abrego Garcia's lawyers' request to send him to Maryland if he's released. Meanwhile, Xinis ruled Monday that the lawsuit against the Trump administration over Abrego Garcia's mistaken deportation can continue. Kunzelman and Finley write for the Associated Press. Finley reported from Norfolk, Va.
Hamilton Spectator
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hamilton Spectator
US will try to deport Abrego Garcia before his trial, Justice Department attorney says
GREENBELT, Md. (AP) — The U.S. government would initiate deportation proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he's released from jail before he stands trial on human smuggling charges in Tennessee, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in Maryland on Monday. The disclosure by U.S. lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House , who said last month that Abrego Garcia would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him. Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia's American wife is suing the Trump administration over his mistaken deportation in March and trying to prevent him being expelled again. Guynn said that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Abrego Garcia once he's released from jail and send him to a 'third country' that isn't his native El Salvador. However, Guynn said he didn't know which country that would be. Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint over President Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious megaprison in his native El Salvador. The Trump administration violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to his native country because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs that terrorized his family. Facing increasing pressure and a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia last month to face federal human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have characterized the case as 'preposterous' and an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial. But she agreed last week to keep Abrego Garcia behind bars at the request of his own attorneys. They had raised concerns the U.S. would try to immediately deport him, while citing what they say were 'contradictory statements' by the Trump administration. For example, Guynn had told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland on June 26 that the U.S. government planned to deport Abrego Garcia to a 'third country' that isn't El Salvador. But he said there was no timeline for the deportation plans. Later that day, DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told The Associated Press that the Justice Department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X that day that Abrego Garcia 'will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he's committed.' Abrego Garcia's attorneys have asked Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland upon release from jail in Tennessee, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland outside of Washington for more than a decade, working construction and raising a family with his American wife. Xinis is still considering his lawyers' request to send him to Maryland if he's released. Meanwhile, Xinis ruled Monday that the lawsuit against the Trump administration over Abrego Garcia's mistaken deportation can continue. ___ This story's headline and summary have been corrected to show that Jonathan Guynn is a civil division attorney with the Department of Justice, not a prosecutor. ___ Finley reported from Norfolk, Virginia. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Winnipeg Free Press
2 days ago
- Politics
- Winnipeg Free Press
US will try to deport Abrego Garcia before his trial, prosecutor says
GREENBELT, Md. (AP) — The U.S. government would initiate deportation proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he's released from jail before he stands trial on human smuggling charges in Tennessee, a Justice Department attorney told a federal judge in Maryland on Monday. The disclosure by U.S. lawyer Jonathan Guynn contradicts statements by spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House, who said last month that Abrego Garcia would stand trial and possibly spend time in an American prison before the government moves to deport him. Guynn made the revelation during a federal court hearing in Maryland, where Abrego Garcia's lawyers have expressed concerns that he would be denied due process once more by the Trump administration before it likely tries to expel him again from the U.S. Guynn said that U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement would detain Abrego Garcia once he's released from jail in Tennessee and send him to a 'third country' that isn't his native El Salvador. However, Guynn said he didn't know which country that would be. Abrego Garcia became a flashpoint over President Donald Trump's immigration policies when he was deported in March to a notorious megaprison in his native El Salvador. The Trump administration violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador because he likely faced persecution there by local gangs that terrorized his family. Facing increasing pressure and a Supreme Court order, the Trump administration returned Abrego Garcia to the United States last month to face federal human smuggling charges. Abrego Garcia's attorneys have characterized the case as 'preposterous' and an attempt to justify his erroneous deportation. A federal judge in Nashville was preparing to release Abrego Garcia to await trial. But she agreed last week to keep Abrego Garcia behind bars at the request of his own attorneys. They had raised concerns the U.S. would try to immediately deport him, while citing what they say were 'contradictory statements' by the Trump administration. For example, Guynn had told U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland on June 26 that the U.S. government planned to deport Abrego Garcia to a 'third country' that isn't El Salvador. But he said there was no timeline for the deportation plans. Later that day, DOJ spokesperson Chad Gilmartin told The Associated Press that the Justice Department intends to try Abrego Garcia on the smuggling charges before it moves to deport him. White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson posted on X that day that Abrego Garcia 'will face the full force of the American justice system — including serving time in American prison for the crimes he's committed.' Abrego Garcia's attorneys have asked Xinis to order the government to take Abrego Garcia to Maryland upon release from jail in Tennessee, an arrangement that would prevent his deportation before trial. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland outside of Washington for more than a decade, working construction and raising a family with his American wife. Xinis is still considering his lawyers' request to send him to Maryland if he's released. Meanwhile, Xinis ruled Monday that the lawsuit against the Trump administration over Abrego Garcia's mistaken deportation can continue. ___ Finley reported from Norfolk, Virginia.
Yahoo
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Maine Legislature passes restrictions on federal immigration enforcement
A member of U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement apprehends a suspect. (Photo via U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement) This story was updated following Senate action and enactment votes. Both chambers of the Maine Legislature approved a bill to restrict local authorities from carrying out federal immigration enforcement. After about three hours total of debate across chambers, the Senate voted 21-14 for passage on Tuesday, following the House of Representatives that approved it earlier by one vote. Both chambers enacted the bill on Wednesday, sending it to the governor. Meanwhile, both chambers on Tuesday rejected a competing proposal that would prevent local agencies from adopting any policies that restrict them from assisting in such enforcement. During both the House and Senate debate, Republican legislators argued restricting local police from collaborating with federal authorities on immigration matters would make Maine a 'sanctuary state,' putting a target on Maine in light of President Donald Trump threatening to withhold federal funding from and conduct immigration raids in so-called sanctuary jurisdictions. Meanwhile, Democrats argued the bill would do no such thing. Rather, they said, adding such restrictions is necessary to ensure the rule of law is upheld since the Trump administration has violated legal norms and ignored court orders in a mass push to remove noncitizens. LD 1971, the bill the House advanced, passed with a 74-73 vote. It would place restrictions on some immigration enforcement activities, but it is more limited in scope than originally proposed. Effort to restrict Maine police from carrying out federal immigration enforcement splits lawmakers After law enforcement authorities raised concern about the proposal hindering federal partnerships that sometimes touch on some immigration issues, such as drug enforcement task forces, the amended version clarifies that only work done by local police for the primary purpose of immigration enforcement would be banned. 'This bill does not prevent Maine law enforcement agencies from doing their job,' bill sponsor Rep. Deqa Dhalac (D-South Portland) said on the floor, pointing out that immigration enforcement is an authority generally reserved to federal authorities. 'Instead, it provides clarity. Especially, it will ensure that Maine law enforcement can focus on their primary mission, safeguarding our communities and upholding the state laws.' Consideration of these restrictions comes amid state and national scrutiny of immigration enforcement. Trump announced late Sunday that he was directing ICE officers to conduct immigration raids in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, the nation's three most populous cities that are all led by elected Democrats in heavily Democratic states. 'I want ICE, Border Patrol, and our Great and Patriotic Law Enforcement Officers, to FOCUS on our crime ridden and deadly Inner Cities, and those places where Sanctuary Cities play such a big role,' Trump wrote on social media, referring to cities that don't coordinate with federal immigration officials for civil enforcement. The announcement escalates a week-long conflict in Los Angeles, where large protests started after immigration officials began arresting people at work sites across the city. Trump directed 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to L.A. amid the protests without California Gov. Gavin Newsom's consent. 'I never imagined that I would be standing here questioning whether the state of Maine should regulate when and how our police officers interact with their federal counterparts,' Rep. Tavis Rock Hasenfus (D-Augusta) said on the floor. Hasenfus went on, 'But nor could I have imagined that I'd be living in a country where federal agents would appear in our communities in unmarked vans and masks, executing orders without question, simply to meet arbitrary quotas. Nor did I imagine a time when our federal government would so routinely ignore lawful court orders instructing them to abide by basic constitutional principles.' Pointing to other injustices in the nation's history, Rep. Victoria Doudera (D-Camden) argued that some of the Trump administration's actions are in line with that legacy. 'I think it's been all too American in our past,' Doudera said, 'but I think it represents the worst of what America is and we need to stand up in this Legislature and be for the best that America has.' Others praised the Trump administration on immigration enforcement. 'We should not stand in their way when they come into our great state to do their job and arrest these criminals,' said Rep. Michael Soboleski (R-Phillips). Soboleski is the sponsor of the immigration bill the Legislature rejected, LD 1656, which would prevent local agencies from adopting any policies that restrict them from assisting in the enforcement of federal immigration law. After the House voted against passage 77-71, the Senate followed suit with a 20-14 vote against it. 'This legislation is a critical step towards ensuring that Maine remains a law-abiding partner with federal government particularly,' Rep. Jennifer Poirier (R-Skowhegan) said of LD 1656. 'In the realm of immigration enforcement, the Trump administration has made it clear that states and localities that impede federal immigration enforcement risk losing significant federal funding.' Wells Police pauses ICE agreement in light of pending legislation that would ban it In an executive order in late April, Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, a move a judge has since blocked. In the Senate Tuesday night, Assistant Minority Leader Matthew Harrington (R-York), a 17-year veteran of law enforcement and current reserve police officer for the Kennebunk Police Department, said that he has personally detained suspects for federal immigration authorities under multiple administrations. 'This is nothing new to our state,' Harrington said, 'but this bill is going to handcuff law enforcement's ability to assist those agencies with those investigations.' Sen. Joe Baldacci (D-Penobscot) disagreed. 'In normal times, the arguments of my Republican friends might persuade me or influence me on this decision,' Baldacci said. 'But the fact of the matter is, we do not live in normal times. We actually have an administration that does not respect law, that runs roughshod over the law.' Representatives made similar points in the House earlier Tuesday. 'I say this as someone who has often been critical of my party's view on border security — this isn't about border security anymore. It's about cruelty,' Rep. Adam Lee (D-Auburn) said. Not all in the Democratic Party agreed. Rep. Dani O'Halloran (D-Brewer) argued, 'Criminal networks do not stop at city or state lines, and neither should our collaboration as law enforcement agencies.' But a violation of immigration law, the enforcement that LD 1971 seeks to ban, is a civil rather than criminal violation, Rep. Ellie Sato (D-Gorham) pointed out. In normal times, the arguments of my Republican friends might persuade me or influence me on this decision. But the fact of the matter is, we do not live in normal times. We actually have an administration that does not respect law, that runs roughshod over the law. – Sen. Joe Baldacci (D-Penobscot) Other legislators who voted against LD 1656 amplified concerns raised by the Maine Municipal Association during the bill's public hearing that municipalities would be on the hook to pay for their local police taking on federal immigration enforcement work, expanding their legal risk with no compensation 'For me, that is also terribly concerning,' said Rep. Amy J. Roeder (D-Bangor). In the upper chamber, it is also troubling to at least one senator from across the aisle. Sen. Rick Bennett (R-Oxford), who voted for LD 1971, said, 'I, for one, am concerned about the use of Maine resources and the taking of those resources for activities that are governed by whatever party is in the White House. We need to focus on Maine, and I believe that this amended version actually accomplishes that.' Concerns about these costs have been raised by residents in the town of Wells, whose police force became the only in Maine to enter into an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under what's called the 287(g) program. After the 287(g) program was discontinued in 2012 due to the discovery of discriminatory practices such as racial profiling, Trump revived it to bolster ICE's capacity by deputizing local police officers to detain immigrants. But Wells Police Department has since paused its agreement to see if the Legislature votes to ban such contracts. On Friday, Wells residents submitted a petition to their town manager with more than 900 signatures calling for the department to permanently terminate the agreement. The Judiciary Committee opted to postpone until next year consideration of another bill, LD 1259, that seeks to explicitly prohibit these contracts, but LD 1971 would also have this effect. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
