News
What to know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from immigration custody
BALTIMORE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation helped galvanize opposition to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, was released from immigration detention on Thursday, and a judge has temporarily blocked any further efforts to detain him.
Abrego Garcia currently can’t be deported to his home country of El Salvador thanks to a 2019 immigration court order that found he had a “well founded fear” of danger there. However, the Trump administration has said he cannot stay in the U.S. Over the past few months, government officials have said they would deport him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana and, most recently, Liberia.
Abrego Garcia is fighting his deportation in federal court in Maryland, where his attorneys claim the administration is manipulating the immigration system to punish him for successfully challenging his earlier deportation.
Here’s what to know about the latest developments in the case:
Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country.
While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, despite the earlier court ruling.
When Abrego Garcia was deported in March, he was held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.
The Trump administration initially fought efforts to bring him back to the U.S. but eventually complied after the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. He returned to the U.S. in June, only to face an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia was held in a Tennessee jail for more than two months before he was released on Friday, Aug. 22, to await trial in Maryland under home detention.
His freedom lasted a weekend. On the following Monday, he reported to the Baltimore immigration office for a check-in and was immediately taken into immigration custody. Officials announced plans to deport him to a series of African countries, but they were blocked by an order from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland.
On Thursday, after months of legal filings and hearings, Xinis ruled that Abrego Garcia should be released immediately. Her ruling hinged on what was likely a procedural error by the immigration judge who heard his case in 2019.
Normally, in a case like this, an immigration judge will first issue an order of removal. Then the judge will essentially freeze that order by issuing a “withholding of removal” order, according to Memphis immigration attorney Andrew Rankin.
In Abrego Garcia’s case, the judge granted withholding of removal to El Salvador because he found Abrego Garcia’s life could be in danger there. However, the judge never took the first step of issuing the order of removal. The government argued in Xinis’ court that the order of removal could be inferred, but the judge disagreed.
Without a final order of removal, Abrego Garcia can’t be deported, Xinis ruled.
The only way to get an order of removal is to go back to immigration court and ask for one, Rankin said. But reopening the immigration case is a gamble because Abrego Garcia’s attorneys would likely seek protection from deportation in the form of asylum or some other type of relief.
One wrinkle is that immigration courts are officially part of the executive branch, and the judges there are not generally viewed as being as independent as federal judges.
“There might be independence in some areas, but if the administration wants a certain result, by all accounts it seems they’re going to exert the pressure on the individuals to get that result,” Rankin said. “I hope he gets a fair shake, and two lawyers make arguments — somebody wins, somebody loses — instead of giving it to an immigration judge with a 95% denial rate, where everybody in the world knows how it’s gonna go down.”
Alternatively, the government could appeal Xinis’ order to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and try to get her ruling overturned, Rankin said. If the appeals court agreed with the government that the final order of removal was implied, there could be no need to reopen the immigration case.
In compliance with Xinis’ order, Abrego Garcia was released from immigration detention in Pennsylvania on Thursday evening and allowed to return home for the first time in months. However, he was also told to report to an immigration officer in Baltimore early the next morning.
Fearing that he would be detained again, his attorneys asked Xinis for a temporary restraining order. Xinis filed that order early Friday morning. It prohibits immigration officials from taking Abrego Garcia back into custody, at least for the time being. A hearing on the issue could happen as early as next week.
Meanwhile, in Tennessee, Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty in the criminal case where he is charged with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling.
Prosecutors claim he accepted money to transport, within the United States, people who were in the country illegally. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.
Abrego Garcia has asked U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw to dismiss the smuggling charges on the grounds of “selective or vindictive prosecution.”
Crenshaw earlier found “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive” and said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern.” Crenshaw specifically cited a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on a Fox News Channel program that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case.
The two sides have been sparring over whether senior Justice Department officials, including Blanche, can be required to testify in the case.
Vote
Total
Democrats
Republicans
215
211
4
208
0
208
The House on Wednesday passed a measure to direct President Trump withdraw U.S. forces from Iran or win congressional approval to continue military operations there. The vote was the fourth of its kind in the chamber since the war began, the previous three having failed.
A vote on this measure was originally scheduled for last month but was pulled by House Republican leaders after it became clear they lacked the votes at the time to defeat it because of several members’ absences. Several Republicans were also absent on Wednesday, but party leaders were unable to delay the vote any longer.
Votes fell mostly along party lines, with the exception of four Republicans, who voted with Democrats to pass the measure. Representative Jared Golden, Democrat of Maine, who had previously voted with Republicans, flipped and voted with his party.
Republicans who voted against their party
The House vote came after four Senate Republicans last month broke from their party to advance a measure to assert the legislature’s role in authorizing the war. The Senate had rejected seven other similar measures, but Republicans in both chambers have expressed increased uneasiness with the conflict as it wears on.
Even if a war powers resolution passed in both the House and Senate, it would be subject to an all-but-certain veto by Mr. Trump, which would need a two-thirds majority in both chambers to override. Beyond that, the president and his senior aides have frequently dismissed efforts by Congress to rein in his war powers, saying they are unconstitutional.
How Every Member Voted
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
No N
No N
No N No N
No N
Did not vote
Did not vote
Did not vote Did not vote
Did not vote
Did not vote
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y Yes Y
Yes Y
Yes Y
Did not vote
Republicans
Member
Answer
Democrats
Member
Answer
Washington — The House on Wednesday passed a measure that would force President Trump to end the war with Iran without congressional authorization, marking the first time the lower chamber has defied the White House on the conflict.
The House voted 215 to 208 to approve the war powers resolution with the help of four Republicans. Democratic Rep. Jared Golden of Maine, who has voted against the three previous failed attempts, also dropped his opposition and voted for the measure, giving his party unanimity on the issue.
Republican Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Tom Barrett of Michigan and Warren Davidson of Ohio voted with Democrats in favor of the measure.
Democrats in the chamber erupted in applause after passage.
The vote was supposed to take place before lawmakers left for the Memorial Day recess, but House GOP leaders abruptly pulled the vote when it became clear they did not have the numbers to block it. Several Republicans were absent and others were expected to support it.
The Senate advanced a similar measure in May to rein in Mr. Trump on Iran after four Republicans joined all but one Democrat to push it forward. Three Republican absences also helped deliver the breakthrough after seven previous unsuccessful votes.
But the Senate’s procedural vote was just the first step on the way to potential passage, and Republicans will have another opportunity to block it in the coming days.
It’s unclear when they plan to vote on the House version. In a statement, House Democratic leaders called on Senate Republicans “to do the right thing.”
Support for the war from some Republicans waned after the conflict passed a statutory 60-day deadline under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which says the president must remove armed forces from hostilities if Congress has not authorized the war. The war passed the deadline on May 1, but the administration has argued that a fragile ceasefire stopped the clock in early April, though both sides have carried out attacks since then.
The Trump administration has also argued the War Powers Resolution of 1973 is unconstitutional, though that theory has never been tested in court.
Republicans who have voted in favor of limiting Mr. Trump’s military powers in Iran have been uncomfortable with the lack of congressional authorization on the war and a strategy to end it. Some fear the war’s unpopularity and the economic fallout could harm the GOP’s chances at keeping control of Congress after the midterm elections in November.
GOP Rep. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, who is running for Senate, said in a private exchange at a campaign stop last week that the war could be a “political liability” if it continues beyond “the next couple of weeks,” according to audio obtained by CBS News.
But Mr. Trump said last month he was in “no hurry” to make a deal with Iran ahead of the midterms.
“Everybody’s saying, ‘Oh, the midterms, I’m in a hurry.’ I’m in no hurry,” he said.
The resolution approved Wednesday was introduced in April by Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It directs the president “to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with Iran,” unless Congress declares war or authorizes the use of military force.
Rep. Brian Mast of Florida, the Republican chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, earlier Wednesday called it a “stupid political vote” that “weakens the president’s hands as he’s negotiating with Iran.”
After the vote, Meeks brushed off the assertion that the war powers votes have undercut the president during negotiations with Iran. When asked whether Democrats would keep forcing votes to end the Iran war, Meeks told reporters, “You can expect us to continue to do our jobs.”
“We’re going to continue to do our constitutional responsibilities,” he said.
Fitzpatrick, who also voted in favor of a war powers resolution in May, said, “The law is the law.”
“We have to follow the law. There’s a law on the books,” Fitzpatrick said. “So you have two choices: You either follow the law or you change the law. You can’t violate the law. That’s not an option.”
During floor debate on the measure on May 20, Democrats questioned why Republicans haven’t held a vote on an authorization for military force to provide Mr. Trump with legal guardrails for attacking Iran.
“If my Republican colleagues believe this is justified, they should bring an AUMF to the floor,” Meeks said.
There’s been little momentum so far behind an AUMF introduced by Barrett earlier in May.
Rep. Kevin Kiley of California, an independent who caucuses with Republicans, argued there are “better tools” for Congress to assert its authority.
“We actually have the ability to provide direction as to how funds should be used,” Kiley said, referring to Congress’ power of the purse. “I understand why people want to use whatever tools are available, but I believe that Congress should use those tools of congressional oversight and the powers we have under Article I that really have teeth here.”
Note: Map shows the area with a shake intensity of 3 or greater, which U.S.G.S. defines as “weak,” though the earthquake may be felt outside the areas shown. The New York Times
A moderately strong, 5.1-magnitude earthquake struck in the North Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, according to the United States Geological Survey.
The temblor happened at 5:45 a.m. Pacific time about 40 miles west of Petrolia, Calif., data from the agency shows.
As seismologists review available data, they may revise the earthquake’s reported magnitude. Additional information collected about the earthquake may also prompt U.S.G.S. scientists to update the shake-severity map.
Subsequent quakes have been reported in the same area. Such temblors are typically aftershocks caused by minor adjustments along the portion of a fault that slipped at the time of the initial earthquake.
Aftershocks detected
Quakes and aftershocks within 100 miles
Aftershocks can occur days, weeks or even years after the first earthquake. These events can be of equal or larger magnitude to the initial earthquake, and they can continue to affect already damaged locations.
The New York Times
When quakes and aftershocks occurred
Sources: United States Geological Survey (epicenter, aftershocks, shake intensity); LandScan via Oak Ridge National Laboratory (population density) | Notes: Shaking categories are based on the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale. When aftershock data is available, the corresponding maps and charts include earthquakes within 100 miles and seven days of the initial quake. All times above are Pacific time. Shake data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 6:03 a.m. Pacific time. Aftershocks data is as of Wednesday, June 3 at 8:01 a.m. Pacific time.
-
Ohio5 minutes agoOhio State reaches $100 million settlement with nearly 300 sex abuse survivors | CNN
-
Oklahoma8 minutes agoRECAP: Democrat State Superintendent Candidates Address Oklahoma Education Issues in Primary Debate
-
Oregon13 minutes agoOregon man charged with the murders of four women is now accused of killing a fifth
-
Pennsylvania20 minutes agoCrash in Warminster Township, Pennsylvania, leaves 1 person dead, police say
-
Rhode Island23 minutes agoClergy sex abuse bill passes RI Senate on unanimous vote. What’s next
-
South-Carolina28 minutes agoThe 3 Democrats vying for SC governor’s seat take jabs at each other in SCETV debate
-
South Dakota35 minutes agoTornado watch in effect as severe storms target South Dakota
-
Tennessee38 minutes agoTennessee Baseball Breakout Star Announces He Won’t Enter the Transfer Portal
