Judge says Friday hearing in case of mistakenly deported Maryland man will proceed
Grant Faint/Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge in Maryland says she’ll go ahead with Friday’s hearing in the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was deported to El Salvador in error, after the Trump administration sought to delay the heating until next week.
The Justice Department on Friday morning asked U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to reschedule the hearing for Wednesday, April 16, two days after El Salvador President Nayib Bukele is scheduled to meet with the White House — but the judge, in a filing, kept the hearing date as scheduled.
Judge Xinis scheduled the hearing after the U.S. Supreme late Thursday affirmed her earlier ruling ordering the Trump administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States after he was mistakenly sent to an El Salvador prison last month.
Judge Xinis had also ordered the Trump administration to file, by 9:30 a.m. ET Friday, a supplemental declaration from an individual with personal knowledge acknowledging the current physical location of Abrego Garcia and what steps the administration will take to facilitate his immediate return.
Attorneys for DOJ requested the deadline for the supplemental declaration be moved to next week, but in her filing the judge moved the deadline back by only two hours.
The Supreme Court on Thursday largely upheld Judge Xinis’ ruling last week ordering the Trump administration to bring Abrego Garcia back.
“The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the Supreme Court’s unsigned order stated.
Abrego Garcia — despite having protected legal status preventing his deportation to El Salvador, where his attorneys say he escaped political violence in 2011 — was sent to that country’s notorious CECOT mega-prison following what the government said was an “administrative error.”
The Trump administration has claimed Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 gang, which his lawyers and his wife deny, and argued in legal filings that because Abrego Garcia is no longer in U.S. custody, the courts cannot order him to be returned to the U.S. nor order El Salvador to return him.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration has emphasized its role in carrying out foreign policy, which was also cited in the high court’s order.
The Supreme Court said the lower-court judge should “clarify” her earlier order “with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”
In a statement, a Justice Department spokesman said: “As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the President to conduct foreign affairs. By directly noting the deference owed to the Executive Branch, this ruling once again illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the President’s authority to conduct foreign policy.”
Reacting to the Supreme Court ruling, the attorney for Abrego Garcia told ABC News that “the rule of law prevailed.”
“The Supreme Court upheld the District Judge’s order that the government has to bring Kilmar home,” said Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg. “Now they need to stop wasting time and get moving.”
ABC News’ Alexander Mallin and Devin Dwyer contributed to this report.
(NEW YORK) — The Army is reviewing how pro-President Donald Trump merchandise wound up being sold on one of its bases this week at a service-sponsored event orchestrated by the White House and the president’s supporters.
Earlier this week, Trump spoke at Fort Bragg in North Carolina in celebration of the Army’s 250th birthday. At the event, a truck was spotted selling Trump merchandise — including “Make America Great Again” hats and other “America First” swag. The practice is likely at odds with long-standing Defense Department policy, which prohibits troops from wearing political garb such as hats or flags or expressing their political opinion while in uniform.
The policy is intended to preserve America’s tradition of apolitical military forces, serving at the behest of a democratically elected president regardless of party.
When asked about pictures of troops in uniform buying Trump merch on a military base, a spokesperson for the base said the matter was under review.
“The Army remains committed to its core values and apolitical service to the nation,” said Col. Mary Ricks, a spokesperson for the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg.
“The Army does not endorse political merchandise or the views it represents,” Ricks added. “The vendor’s presence is under review to determine how it was permitted and to prevent similar occurrences in the future.”
The public event at Fort Bragg, which is home to the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and serves as the headquarters of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, was orchestrated much like a Trump campaign rally.
Trump spoke for nearly an hour, repeating false claims of a “rigged and stolen election” and bashing his political rivals. He referred to Los Angeles as a “trash heap” in the grip of “transnational gangs and criminals” — a reference to the ongoing protests in the city. He said immigration protestors were part of a “foreign invasion,” an assessment at odds with his top military adviser, Gen. Dan Caine, who publicly contradicted that statement in testimony.
Sources say organizers of the event placed soldiers who volunteered to attend directly behind the president as he aired his political grievances. Some of the troops nodded and cheered at Trump’s suggestion of putting people in jail for burning the American flag and some jeered when he mentioned the “fake press.”
Several of the soldiers booed at Trump’s references to California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass.
“In Los Angeles, the governor of California, the mayor of Los Angeles, they’re incompetent and they paid troublemakers, agitators and insurrectionists,” he said of the protests in Los Angeles. “They’re engaged in this willful attempt to nullify federal law and aid the occupation of the city by criminal invaders.”
In hindsight, one Army official said, uniformed officials on the ground probably should have pushed back more on the political nature of the event. Two weeks prior, the president had turned a commencement ceremony at West Point into a politically charged speech in which he also advised cadets to avoid “trophy wives.”
“But what can you do? To you, he’s the president. To us, he’s the commander-in-chief,” the official said, a reference to the president’s democratically appointed role in commanding the nation’s fighting forces.
Sources say civilians from the federal commission America 250 — many of them with close ties to the White House — were given “full creative control” of the Fort Bragg event. America 250 and the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
According to two people familiar with the planning effort, the organizers told Army officials on base ahead of the rally that they wanted a certain number of soldiers eager to stand behind the president. These troops would have to undergo a criminal background check for security reasons. Also required, according to sources, — the troops would need to look fit, not fat, in keeping with the new administration’s focus on fitness standards, warrior ethos and lethality.
The troops would have to agree to behave professionally and respectfully, sources said. No eyerolling, for example, or reacting negatively during Trump’s speech.
Army officials from the base worked diligently with America 250 organizers to find troops that would fit the bill.
“We’re soldiers,” one person said. “We do what we’re told.”
As it turned out, finding troops on base willing to be respectful of Trump wasn’t hard, sources said. Trump tends to be popular at Fort Bragg among many of the rank-and-file there. And because the event was voluntary, the spectacle attracted his most ardent supporters.
In the end, footage of troops booing and cheering a political speech while being offered MAGA merch was regrettable, said the Army official.
“We wish it hadn’t happened,” the official said. “The Army would like to focus on the history and the celebration of its 250th anniversary and its commitment to defend the nation.”
ABC News’ Luis Martinez contributed to this report.
Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in Tecoluca, in El Salvador; Alex Pena/Anadolu via Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has canceled a Tuesday afternoon hearing on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged migrant gang members without due process, after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday evening that the administration could resume carrying out such deportations.
Boasberg had scheduled the hearing to consider whether to convert the temporary restraining order he issued blocking those deportations last month into a longer-lasting preliminary injunction, as he mulled whether to hold the administration in contempt for failing to provide information about the deportation of over 200 alleged Venezuelan gang members last month.
Boasberg’s order canceling Tuesday’s hearing did not address where the contempt issue stands.
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision Monday evening, ruled that the Trump administration could resume deportations of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act, but said detainees must be given due process to challenge their removal.
The unsigned opinion lifted Boasberg’s temporary restraining order, ruling that he lacked the jurisdiction to address the matter.
In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the ACLU — which is representing several alleged Venezuelan gang members who are set to be sent to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act — filed habeas petitions in the New York district where the men are being held, seeking to challenge their removal.
Trump last month invoked the Alien Enemies Act — a wartime authority used to deport noncitizens with little-to-no due process — by arguing that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States.
Judge Boasberg temporarily blocked the president’s use of the law on March 15, ordering that the government turn around two flights carrying more than 200 alleged Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador.
Authorities failed to turn the flights around, leading the judge to threaten the administration with contempt.
(BOISE, Idaho) — The trial for the man accused of killing four Idaho college students in their beds will continue as a death penalty case, despite the fact that suspect Bryan Kohberger was recently diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, an Idaho judge ruled late Thursday.
Additionally, Fourth District Judge Steven Hippler came down on the side of prosecutors — ruling that the “bulk” of what was said on a 911 call the morning after Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin were stabbed to death in November 2022 can be shared with the jury, as can text messages between the two surviving roommates. There will be a few exceptions, he said.
Kohberger has been charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary in the murders of the four University of Idaho students. His trial is set to start on Aug. 11 and is expected to last several months.
Autism and the death penalty
Yhe defense attempted to get the death penalty taken off the table on grounds of Kohberger’s autism spectrum disorder, saying that it could make proving his innocence harder. However, in his decision denying the request, Hippler said those concerns could be addressed during jury selection.
“Intellectual impairment — a hallmark of an intellectual disability — is not present in the diagnostic criteria of ASD and no court has ever found the two to be equivalent,” the judge wrote. Kohberger, the judge noted, “has not presented any evidence of a national consensus as to whether the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for individuals with ASD.”
The judge argued that Kohberger’s lawyers tried to argue with an “apples-to-oranges comparison” of intellectual impairments that ultimately fell flat. And defense lawyers cited no capital case precedent in trying to argue there’s “growing societal sensitivity to mental disorders” and antipathy to executing those who live with them, the judge said.
“No court has ever found ASD to be categorically death-disqualifying diagnosis,” Hippler wrote.
Kohberger may have poor social skills, the judge acknowledged. In fact, Kohberger’s social difficulties, including with personal space, actually “played a role” in his Ph.D. funding being yanked, the judge said, citing a defense expert who interviewed his family, former teachers and peers.
He was never “overtly inappropriate,” but didn’t have a lot of friends — nor insight as to why that might be. He could be rather awkward and “monotone,” using formal and scripted phrases like “Objectively speaking…” and “Mind you…”
But even defense experts did not find him irretrievably impaired, the judge said. Kohberger has an IQ in the 90th percentile for his age, graduated from his master’s degree program with a 4.0 GPA, showed “some typical social behaviors” and could be polite, the judge cited from defense experts.
King Road 911 call
The “bulk” of what was said on the 911 call placed by the surviving roommates of the victims on the morning after they were stabbed to death on Nov. 13, 2022, can be used at trial, Hippler ruled.
He has also ruled in favor of admitting the surviving roommates’ texts to each other, as well as their attempts to reach the victims in those crucial hours the night the killings occurred.
A full breakdown charting out what is and what is not admissible from the call was appended to the end of the judge’s filing.
Explaining why those text messages can be admitted, the judge said that much of it describes what they were seeing, feeling and doing in the moment — and the results of those actions.
“The events are sufficiently startling to both D.M. and B.F for purposes of the excited utterance exception. D.M. and B.F. are young female college students and the self-described ‘scaredy cats of the house,'” the judge wrote. “They were awoken from sleep after a night of drinking with D.M. reporting that she heard noises and saw a masked intruder in their home. None of the other roommates were responding to their calls and texts, further indicating something was amiss.”
“It would be potentially terrifying for anyone, including these young women,” the judge continued. “To argue that they would have run out of the house or called someone else for help had they really been startled unempathetically ignores these circumstances and the trauma and confusion they were evidently experiencing, which likely offset logical thought.”
Among the few items needing redaction is an instance when the person on the phone to the 911 dispatcher describes how one of the roommates had relayed that Xana was “passed out and she was drunk last night and she’s not waking up” and that they “saw some man in their house last night.”
The judge said that person on the call did not have firsthand knowledge and was only telling the dispatcher what they had been told; therefore, that could not be played for the jury.
He also ruled that one of the surviving roommate’s attempts to start a timeline of those early morning hours should be redacted, since it’s not an in-the-moment remark, having come after “several hours to reflect on what she had seen and experienced at 4:00 a.m.”
The latest court filings also provide new information about the moments the surviving roommates came upon the victims, such as when one of them called a friend “to come over and check the house because she was scared.”
The friend and her boyfriend came over and met the two survivors “at the bottom floor of the house,” and together they “started to walk up the stairs to the second floor.”
“When they reached the second floor, H.J. went to the kitchen to grab a kitchen knife. When he came backout, D.M. ‘saw Xana again for a split second. And I just started bawling because I thought she had just like – I don’t even know. I thought maybe she was still just drunk and all asleep on the floor,'” the judge quoted from grand jury transcripts.
“H.J. told D.M. and B.F. to ‘get out,'” the judge quoted. “E.A., who had started up the stairs, also turned around after H.J. instructed her not to come any further. They both went outside.”
“Shortly afterwards, H.J. exited the house and told them to call 911. He was pale white and mentioned something about someone being unconscious,” the judge continued.
Expert witnesses
Siding with prosecutors, the judge ruled Thursday that expert witnesses on a range of fronts will be able to testify.
Those include an FBI special agent who helped analyze Kohberger’s cellphone records — something his lawyers have repeatedly pushed back on.
Defense lawyers said Kohberger was driving around alone on the night the killings occurred, and they wanted to call to the stand a cellphone data expert to back that up. The special agent is expected to counter that data expert’s argument.
Experts also include a forensic accountant for the FBI who can talk about how Kohberger spent his money — including how he only made ATM withdrawals around and after the killings and totally stopped using his debit card just a couple days before the killings — whereas prior, debit card use had been a regular habit.
They also include a supervisor at Amazon.com, expected to speak specifically to Kohberger’s click history and other online shopping data. Prosecutors have alleged that eight months before the killings, Kohberger bought a knife and sheath that could have been the murder weapon.
DNA matching Kohberger’s was found on a KA-BAR knife sheath by one of the victim’s bodies, prosecutors have said — a linchpin in an otherwise largely circumstantial case. No murder weapon has been found.
Prosecutors can also call a detective who can testify that stabbing to death all four students could have been achieved in mere minutes — and that just one person would have needed no help.
“Depending on the suspect’s pace and route, he could have carried out the crimes in approximately two to four minutes,” the judge said in his ruling.
The judge acknowledged that the detective could potentially be called as a rebuttal witness if the defense tries to argue, as they have suggested, that Kohberger’s ASD deficits make it “not possible” for him to have “acted with the speed and coordination required to commit the crimes in the time frame alleged.”
