In a tense Maryland courtroom on Monday, October 6, 2025, the legal saga surrounding Salvadorian migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia took yet another dramatic turn. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, visibly frustrated, blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to delay Abrego Garcia’s deportation proceedings, making it clear that the government could not use the ongoing federal shutdown as an excuse for its lack of answers and preparation. The courtroom showdown underscored the mounting pressure on federal officials to explain the convoluted handling of Abrego Garcia’s case and to ensure that his rights are protected as the threat of deportation to the southern African nation of Eswatini looms.
The case, which has seen Abrego Garcia shuffled between countries and legal systems, began with what Trump officials described as an “administrative error.” In March 2025, Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador, only to be returned to the United States in June of the same year. Not long after, he found himself facing unrelated criminal charges in Tennessee. According to Fox News, the government’s handling of his case has been anything but straightforward, with repeated missteps and a lack of clear communication fueling both legal uncertainty and public scrutiny.
During the Monday status hearing, Judge Xinis made her impatience plain. Justice Department lawyers, representing the Trump administration, repeatedly failed to provide basic information about Abrego Garcia’s detention and the government’s plans for his deportation. After a 30-minute recess—granted at the government’s own request—the legal team returned to court empty-handed, unable to shed any new light on the case. Xinis, according to Fox News, didn’t mince words: “You come to court prepared,” she admonished the lawyers. “The government has the burden here, the way that I see it.”
The judge was particularly incensed by the government’s claim that the ongoing shutdown was to blame for its inability to provide answers. “I’m finding it very hard to believe that there’s some magical information you’re going to get with another 30 minutes,” she remarked. “It’s remarkable that you can’t find a soul who can give you any additional information in this case.” Her frustration was palpable, and she made it clear that she expected a higher standard of preparedness from those representing the federal government. “You’ve got to imagine I would ask some basic questions,” she told the Justice Department’s attorneys.
Judge Xinis ended the hearing by issuing a pointed order: both parties are to return to court on Friday, October 10, 2025, for an evidentiary hearing. This time, the government must produce a witness with firsthand knowledge of Abrego Garcia’s case—someone who can testify under oath about removal efforts, the status of the case, and whether there is a “significant likelihood” that Abrego Garcia will soon be deported to Eswatini. The judge was explicit in her warning: the witness must be able to answer questions directly, unlike a previous witness who, according to her, “knew nothing” and appeared “purposely” unprepared.
At the heart of the legal wrangling is the question of whether Abrego Garcia’s rights to due process are being respected. In August 2025, his lawyers filed an emergency habeas request to keep him in the United States, ensuring that he has access to critical legal protections—including the right to a reasonable-fear interview—before any removal to a third country can take place. According to the Associated Press, the emergency motion was filed moments after Abrego Garcia was arrested at the Baltimore Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office, where he had been ordered to check in as a condition of his release from U.S. custody in Tennessee.
The Trump administration’s decision to seek Abrego Garcia’s removal to Eswatini, a country with which he has no known ties, has raised eyebrows among legal observers and immigrant advocates. Judge Xinis specifically ordered that Friday’s hearing address when the administration reached out to Eswatini about its plans and what the time frame for removal might be. The judge’s insistence on clarity and accountability reflects broader concerns about transparency in the government’s handling of immigration cases, especially those involving so-called “third-country” deportations.
Throughout the proceedings, Judge Xinis emphasized her responsibility to ensure a fair process. In rejecting the government’s request to delay Monday’s hearing, she stated that she was “duty bound” to consider the case, noting that the issues at stake went beyond Abrego Garcia’s individual habeas request and touched on fundamental questions of justice and due process. Her approach suggests a broader judicial skepticism toward attempts by the government to sidestep scrutiny, particularly in cases where basic rights may be at risk.
The government’s repeated invocation of the federal shutdown as a reason for its lack of preparedness did little to sway Judge Xinis. She made it clear that the shutdown was no excuse for failing to answer the court’s questions or to provide a witness with meaningful knowledge of the case. Her pointed criticism highlighted the tension between the demands of the legal system and the realities of political gridlock in Washington—a tension that, in this instance, has left the fate of one man hanging in the balance.
For Abrego Garcia and his family, the uncertainty is acute. Images captured by Fox News Digital show him outside the Baltimore ICE field office with his wife, Jennifer, on the day of his arrest. The couple’s visible anxiety reflects the high stakes of the case—not just for Abrego Garcia, but for countless other migrants whose futures depend on the outcome of similar legal battles. According to his lawyer, the emergency motion filed in August was intended to “block his deportation, leaving the case in a suspended state of legal limbo.”
As the legal process grinds on, attention will now turn to Friday’s evidentiary hearing. Judge Xinis has made it clear that she expects answers—real, substantive answers—about the government’s plans and the likelihood of Abrego Garcia’s removal to Eswatini. The outcome of the hearing could have far-reaching implications, not only for Abrego Garcia, but for the broader debate over immigration policy, due process, and the role of the courts in holding the government accountable.
In the meantime, the case stands as a stark reminder of the complexities and human costs of America’s immigration system. With the eyes of the nation—and the scrutiny of the judiciary—fixed firmly on the outcome, the next chapter in Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s story will unfold in a Baltimore courtroom, where the stakes couldn’t be higher.
