Judge Directs Trump Admin Officials to Limit Statements About Abrego Garcia

A federal judge has instructed the Trump administration to avoid making statements that could prejudice the jury for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant who is fighting multiple court battles with the administration and could be deported to Africa.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, who is overseeing the Salvadoran’s case in Tennessee related to alleged human smuggling, said in an Oct. 27 opinion that “government employees have made extrajudicial statements that are troubling, especially where many of them are exaggerated if not simply inaccurate.”

Crenshaw said that “these statements made allegations regarding Abrego’s ‘character or reputation’ and expressed government officials’ views on Abrego’s ‘guilt or innocence.'”  Crenshaw’s opinion quoted Local Criminal Rule 2.01(a), which prohibits certain statements that could prejudice a proceeding.

Although Crenshaw declined to issue a separate gag order, he directed the administration not to violate the rule to the extent it already applied to them. A separate order from Crenshaw on Oct. 27 also required the government to provide documents as part of a process to determine whether its prosecution of Abrego Garcia was vindictive.

A trial date for the case has been set for Jan. 26, but it’s unclear whether the case will reach trial due to either a dismissal from Crenshaw or Abrego Garcia being deported.

Crenshaw’s order came on the same day as a hearing in Maryland, where U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis asked the Justice Department whether it would deport Abrego Garcia. Xinis noted that deporting Abrego Garcia would end the criminal case against him in Tennessee.

Last week, the administration said it sought to deport Abrego Garcia to Liberia, but a previous order from Xinis has blocked his removal.

Abrego Garcia has become a flashpoint for the administration’s ongoing deportation battles and was removed to his home country El Salvador in March as part of what the Justice Department described as an “administrative error.” He eventually came back to the United States after the Supreme Court affirmed a prior order in which Xinis required the administration to facilitate his return.

Pretrial Litigation

Crenshaw said the local criminal rule was at odds with comments Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi made about Abrego Garcia.

Noem had described Abrego Garcia as a “gang member, human trafficker, serial domestic abuser, and child predator.” While announcing charges against Abrego Garcia in June, Bondi said “the grand jury found that over the past nine years, Abrego Garcia has played a significant role in an alien smuggling ring.”

“They found this was his full time job, not a contractor,” she said. “He was a smuggler of humans and children and women. He made over 100 trips, the grand jury found, smuggling people throughout our country.” According to Crenshaw, this was at odds with the local criminal rule because it offered an opinion as to evidence in the case.

Crenshaw also faulted the defense for disclosing in court documents the existence of plea negotiations, which he said was prejudicial to Abrego Garcia because it suggested to potential jurors that he was guilty.

Robert McGuire, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, urged the court in October not to adopt a gag order that would intrude on the First Amendment. He said that the jury selection process could weed out those who may be influenced by statements from attorneys or government officials.

“This Court is already well-positioned to verify that any juror who sits on the case does so free from bias or prejudice based on any comment about the case made by either a government official or one of the defense attorneys trying the case,” he said.

A grand jury indicted Abrego Garcia on two counts: conspiracy to transport aliens and unlawful transportation of illegal aliens. The indictment alleged that Abrego Garcia was a member of MS-13 and worked with co-conspirators to knowingly bring illegal immigrants into the United States.

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty and denied being a member of MS-13. He’s attempting to dismiss this case with a motion alleging that the Trump administration was pursuing a vindictive and selective prosecution, retaliating against him for fighting his removal and winning.

In September, the Justice Department argued that the claim lacked evidence, but Crenshaw was unwilling to dismiss the arguments outright.

Crenshaw said on Oct. 3 that there was a “realistic likelihood that the prosecution against [Abrego Garcia] may be vindictive.” A hearing on the issue is expected early next month. Crenshaw also suggested that the timing of the administration’s actions suggested retaliation for the lawsuit brought by Abrego Garcia earlier this year.

He noted that the indictment stemmed from a traffic stop in 2022 and that the associated investigation wasn’t reopened until after the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Abrego Garcia.

So far, the Justice Department has provided internal emails and an affidavit from McGuire stating that he sought an indictment based on his belief that Abrego Garcia committed a federal crime. “I received no direction from anyone at the White House, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, or any other source on the question of whether to seek or not to seek an indictment in this case,” he said.

It also accused the defense of pursuing a “fishing expedition” with request for additional discovery, and has filed a motion to quash subpoenas of high-level officials such as Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. While Crenshaw hasn’t yet ruled on that motion, he did grant Abrego Garcia’s request to compel discovery.

In another order on Oct. 27, Crenshaw said the court would conduct an in camera review of various materials and determine whether a production to Abrego Garcia was necessary. It further ordered the administration to produce any emails between the deputy attorney general’s office and the Middle District of Tennessee, as well as all documents “that reflect individuals who directed the Government’s change in position from ‘deport but not prosecute’ to ‘prosecute and then deport.'”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.