Federal Judge Rebukes Justice Department Over Handling of Abrego Garcia Case, Extends Ban on Removal Through Holidays

A federal judge issued a sharp and unusually direct reprimand to the Department of Justice this week, accusing government lawyers of misleading the court and failing to comply with prior orders in the long-running case of Kilmer Armando Abrego Garcia, a Venezuelan national whom the Trump administration has sought to deport despite repeated judicial rulings blocking his removal.

In a tense hearing that stretched for several hours, Judge Catherine Zinnus of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland made clear she had run out of patience. She extended her temporary restraining order preventing the government from removing Abrego Garcia to Liberia or any other country and warned that she would not tolerate further attempts to “sidestep, delay, or misrepresent” the facts of the case.

“He’s not going anywhere for the holidays,” Judge Zinnus said from the bench, reaffirming that federal agents are prohibited from detaining Abrego Garcia in the middle of the night or transferring him beyond her jurisdiction—a concern she described as “realistic given this administration’s prior conduct.”

But the judge’s most striking comments involved her accusation that the Department of Justice had repeatedly lied to the court or provided testimony so incomplete that it amounted, in her view, to “purposeful deception.” Earlier this month, Judge Zinnus issued a written order stating that at least six government witnesses “either lied outright or arrived deliberately unprepared,” lacking critical documents and information necessary for the proceedings. She signaled then that she would consider possible contempt actions. Thursday’s hearing suggested she might be nearing that decision.

The case of Abrego Garcia has become a flashpoint in the broader clashes between federal courts and Trump-era immigration authorities. Abrego Garcia, who is married to an American citizen and has never been convicted of a crime, was forcibly sent to El Salvador during the Trump administration despite having pending relief claims and despite a court order prohibiting his removal. Upon arrival, he was placed in a notoriously violent detention facility, SECOT, where his legal team says he suffered severe mistreatment.

Judge Zinnus ordered his return to the United States nearly two years ago—an order affirmed twice by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and even allowed to stand by the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to intervene. Yet the government still did not return him. Instead, federal prosecutors initiated a new criminal case accusing him of human trafficking based on a minor encounter during a traffic stop for which he was never ticketed. That indictment, now before Judge Creshaw in the Eastern District of Tennessee, has raised concerns about retaliatory prosecution.

Judge Creshaw is currently reviewing allegations that the government violated his gag order by allowing public figures to label Abrego Garcia a gang member, an MS-13 associate, or a child trafficker on television—claims unsubstantiated in the record and expressly prohibited from public dissemination because of their prejudicial impact.

Judge Zinnus’ frustration appeared to sharpen as she addressed conduct inside her own courtroom. Shortly after questioning government counsel, she issued an ancillary order banning all electronic devices—including phones, smartwatches, laptops, and smart-enabled accessories—from the courtroom unless specifically authorized. While judges have wide discretion to regulate electronics, the abruptness of the order suggested to observers that she believed government actors had violated existing rules.

“Someone brought something into this courtroom that should not have been here,” said one attorney familiar with the proceeding, who requested anonymity to describe the matter. “Given the timing, it is hard not to read this as another instance of eroding trust between the bench and the Justice Department.”

Legal experts note that federal judges have broad inherent authority to enforce truthfulness and decorum in their courtrooms—including the power to initiate contempt proceedings without a request from the opposing party if they observe misconduct firsthand. Contempt can carry fines, sanctions, or even jail time.

“If a judge finds that government lawyers misled the court, intentionally withheld information, or violated courtroom orders, that judge can act sua sponte,” said Sarah L. Marin, a former federal prosecutor and lecturer on judicial ethics. “It is rare against government counsel, but it is not unheard of, particularly in cases involving removal, detention, or civil rights violations.”

The Justice Department declined to comment on Judge Zinnus’ remarks, citing active litigation.

The Abrego Garcia case has become emblematic for critics of the Trump administration’s immigration policies, who argue that it reflects a pattern of circumventing judicial oversight. Supporters of the administration, however, contend that the government must retain broad enforcement discretion and that judges have overstepped in reviewing removal policies.

Judge Zinnus’ actions indicate a judiciary increasingly willing to confront what it views as executive defiance. “Without compliance,” she said in her earlier written order, “there is no rule of law—only arbitrary government power.”

The next steps could be consequential. If Judge Zinnus initiates contempt proceedings, it would mark the second federal judge weighing sanctions against the administration in matters connected to Abrego Garcia’s treatment.

For now, the ruling ensures that Abrego Garcia will remain in the United States through the holidays as his legal battles continue on two fronts: in Maryland, where Judge Zinnus is assessing compliance with her orders, and in Tennessee, where Judge Creshaw is considering whether the federal indictment constitutes vindictive prosecution.

As the hearing concluded, Judge Zinnus reiterated her warning: “This court will not permit the removal of an individual in defiance of lawful orders. Not now, not during the holidays, and not at any other time.”