Trump’s DOJ to Judge: We’re Done With Silly Games

Department of Justice building with American flags.

President Trump’s Department of Justice firmly rejects contempt allegations in the Abrego Garcia case, drawing clear lines on executive authority in foreign affairs.

Key Insights

Trump’s DOJ has challenged a federal judge’s authority to direct executive actions in international affairs regarding deportee Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.
The DOJ maintains that the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return means removing domestic obstacles, not compelling diplomatic actions with El Salvador.
The administration argues that courts cannot direct the Executive Branch on foreign relations, citing the President’s exclusive constitutional power.
Judge Paula Xinis has ordered daily updates on efforts to return Abrego Garcia, expressing frustration over the government’s lack of information.

Constitutional Boundaries at the Center of Legal Battle

The Trump administration has taken a firm stance against what it sees as judicial overreach in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national mistakenly deported to El Salvador. In response to a motion for contempt filed by Abrego Garcia’s attorneys, the Department of Justice submitted a brief that clearly delineates the constitutional boundaries between judicial authority and presidential powers in matters of foreign affairs. The case has escalated as U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis continues to press the administration for information and action regarding efforts to return Abrego Garcia to the United States.

The DOJ’s position centers on a fundamental interpretation of separation of powers, arguing that while the Supreme Court has ordered the government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return, this does not grant courts the authority to dictate how the executive branch conducts foreign relations. Officials maintain that Abrego Garcia is currently detained under El Salvador’s domestic authority, complicating matters beyond simple U.S. jurisdiction and requiring diplomatic engagement that falls exclusively under presidential authority.

A deputy assistant attorney general told the judge overseeing the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was deported to El Salvador in error, that he does "not have the information" regarding Abrego Garcia's whereabouts. https://t.co/KcZDdBsLDf

— ABC News (@ABC) April 11, 2025

Judge Demands Accountability as DOJ Pushes Back

Judge Xinis has expressed growing frustration with what she perceives as a lack of action and transparency from the government. During a recent hearing, she ordered the Justice Department to provide daily updates on efforts to return Abrego Garcia, stating firmly: “From now until compliance, [I am] going to require daily statuses, daily updates. We’re going to make a record of what, if anything, the government is doing or not doing.”

“The Supreme Court has spoken quite clearly. And yet, I can’t get an answer today about what you’ve done in the past, which means, again, the record as it stands, is that nothing has been done,” said Judge Xinis.

The DOJ has pushed back strongly against these requirements, arguing that such judicial supervision improperly interferes with executive functions. In their brief, department officials clarified their interpretation of the Supreme Court’s directive, stating: “Defendants understand ‘facilitate’ to mean what that term has long meant in the immigration context, namely actions allowing an alien to enter the United States. Taking ‘all available steps to facilitate’ the return of Abrego Garcia is thus best read as taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles.”

Constitutional Powers and Foreign Relations at Stake

The Trump administration’s defense rests heavily on constitutional principles regarding foreign affairs. DOJ officials have asserted that “the federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner.” This position reflects the administration’s broader view on executive authority, particularly when dealing with international matters involving sovereign nations like El Salvador.

“The relief sought by Plaintiffs is inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s instruction requiring this Court to respect the President’s Article II authority to manage foreign policy,” said the DOJ brief.

The administration has also highlighted potential complications in the plaintiffs’ request for “discovery,” noting ongoing diplomatic discussions and possible invocation of attorney-client and State Secrets privileges. These concerns underscore the complexity of the case, which involves not just immigration law but also diplomatic relations and national security considerations. The DOJ argues that “any further intrusion into this sensitive process—and any directive from the Court to take action against the nation of El Salvador—would be inconsistent with the care counseled by the Supreme Court.”

The Human Element Amid Constitutional Conflict

While the legal battle continues, Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador, where government officials report he is alive and secure, though detained under El Salvador’s domestic authority. His attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, has expressed distress over the lack of concrete information and progress, stating: “The Supreme Court upheld the District Judge’s order that the government has to bring Kilmar home. Now they need to stop wasting time and get moving.” The administration contends that Abrego Garcia is an MS-13 gang member, which his lawyers firmly deny.

As this case unfolds, it continues to test the boundaries between judicial oversight and executive authority in matters of immigration and foreign policy. President Trump’s Justice Department has made it clear they believe they are operating within their constitutional authority, while Judge Xinis remains committed to ensuring compliance with court orders through continued judicial supervision. The outcome may establish important precedents for similar cases involving deportation and executive power in international relations.