dHis testimony Earlier this month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio downplayed Sen. Chris Van Hollen, mistakenly accusing him of "margarita" with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, one of Maryland Democrats and one of Maryland Democrats who committed a court in more than two months, but his couple are still announcing and announcing his appointment.
"That guy is a trafficker, that guy is a fanatic... and the evidence is going to be clear," Rubio said of Abrego Garcia.
"He can't make such comments!" Van Hollen shouted at the shocked gavel of the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "Secretary Rubio should have brought this testimony to the U.S. federal court because he was not sworn in."
Van Hollen's frustration focused on the Trump administration's frequent gap in its campaign for mass killing in court, where the truth is needed, and what officials say in public, trying to criticize criticism of immigration crackdowns. By playing the crime of deportation in every opportunity, they shift their attention to the more mundane question of whether the government complies with the law.
When the government's lawyers appear in court and ask senior officials to provide a pledge testimony, the government will be more restrictive and bound to facts. The Department of Law Firm insists that the government is following judicial orders sincerely. They recognize the mistakes caused by immigration and customs enforcement, even if they try to reduce its meaning. They provide data and logistical details about deportations that will not be released voluntarily.
Outside court, President Donald Trump and his supreme aide describe the deported people as terrorists and gang leaders, whether they are convicted or not. They admit there is no mistake. If the judge ruled adversely, they condemned them as “communists” and “madmen” and suggested that they would not respect their ruling.
Trump and his top officials shied away from the conventional practice of public comments on pending cases. It has been the subject of Trump's litigation method for years, from the Manhattan booming trial to the Jan. 6 investigation — and the senior officials in charge of his current administration have prompted him. A senior official told me that political struggle is more important than legal struggles.
"Your top officials didn't use the old script to say 'no comments', but instead used a pathway they had to use to fight back and talk directly to the American people about what this administration is trying to do."
The strategy aims to challenge “threat the judge who is elected president to enforce policies”, the official said. Although it is “unusual” to issue a public statement about the ongoing lawsuit, the man said: “This is exactly everyone the president’s supporters are looking for from the senior team.”
White House spokesman Abigail Jackson defended the strategy. “We are confident in the legitimacy of the action and do not apologize for protecting the American people,” she told me in a statement.
However, this approach sometimes leaves Justice Department lawyers between what Trump officials say publicly and their professional and legal obligations to make true statements in court. When an ice official said in a sworn in March that Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador for “administrative errors,” Justice Department lawyers initially transferred the feature to court on behalf of the Trump administration Erez Reuveni. When asked why the administration did not take steps to correct the error and brought Abrego Garcia back, Ruveni said his client - the Trump administration - did not provide him with answers.
Trump’s supreme aide Stephen Miller soon began to publicly insist that Abrego Garcia’s deportation was not actually a mistake, contrary to what the administration admitted in court. Vice President JD Vance claims that even if he has no criminal conviction in the United States or El Salvador, Abrego Garcia is "a convicted member of the MS-13 gang with no legal rights". Attorney General Pam Bondi saw the mistake as a lack of "an additional step in paperwork" and said Abrego Garcia should not be returned.
Ruveni was fired. Bondy said he did not "help" for the government. "Any lawyer who fails to follow this direction will face consequences," she told reporters.
thips and his top assistant Statements made outside the court that undermined the legal stance ruled by government lawyers, which was more candid than his lawyers. The president admitted in an interview with ABC News last month that he could bring Abreg Garcia back by calling the President of El Salvador.
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, an attorney at Abrego Garcia, told me that Trump and his top aides were “really saying something publicly and then, in fact, trying to figure out what that means for their lawsuit, not the other way around, that’s what they’re going to do in the lawsuit and then shaped their public speaking.”
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who chairs the Abrego Garcia case, said at a recent hearing that Trump's claims clearly do not match his attorney's argument that they cannot force foreign governments to release Abrego Garcia. Sinis also noted that Department of Homeland Security officials said Abrego Garcia would never be allowed to return to the United States. It sounds like “Acknowledge your client, your client will not take steps to promote rewards,” the judge said.
Administration attorney Jonathan Guynn said Trump’s statement needs to be read in “appropriate nuances”, which does not contradict our goodwill compliance. ”
"Which world do we live in?" Sinis said in frustration, Gain avoiding her question. “What kind of legal world do we live in?”
Similarly, Trump officials described Venezuelans as invaders and terrorists in the El Salvador prison to prove the government's attempt to use the Foreign Enemy Act of 1798. However, most people have no criminal belief in the United States, with at least 240 out of 240 sent to the United States legally committed a legal analysis.
When U.S. Regional Chief Justice James E. Boasberg asked about the statement from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, he said El Salvador’s large population was one of the tools it planned to use to scare immigrants out of the United States, he questioned whether the U.S. government could control the fate of deportation. Another Justice Department lawyer similarly argued that the statement lacked enough "nuances".
"Isn't this another way to say these statements true?" Boasberg said. When Boasberg asked Trump that he could release Abrego Garcia by phone, administration lawyer Abhishek Kambli said the president’s statement should not be regarded as facts, but rather “the president’s belief in his influence.”
Jeff Joseph, president-elect of the American Immigration Lawyer Association, told me that Trump lawyers are twisting their words as administration officials who are conducting the deportation campaign are doing everything they want and later put forward legal principles.
"Government lawyers have to "rationalize what they are doing afterwards," but they are actually a fact that they are violating the law and they just can't explain it," Joseph said.
He added: "They can't just come to admit they're breaking the law, so they have to come up with some kind of touch to solve it."
tHe ruled by Abrego Garcia The Alien Enemy Act litigation has left legal scholars to warn of the constitutional crisis. However, the lawyer told me that the more obvious effect is the erosion of the "presumption of regularity", which is the benefit of the doubts given by the government in court litigation. This is based on the idea that federal officials and lawyers operate honestly rather than trying to achieve political goals through deception.
As the judge saw one thing the government said in public, one thing that they said in court, they had begun to treat the government's claims with more doubts, sometimes without doubt, even the crime. A recent Bloomberg analysis found that the Trump administration has been losing its immigration-related motions and claims regardless of whether the judges overseeing their cases are appointed by Democrats or Republicans.
The White House focused on political victory and, as the losses increased, it worked harder on judicial oversight. In cases challenging their attempts to send deportation to a third country, if their own country does not withdraw it, U.S. District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled in March that the government must give the evictions time to challenge the government's attempt to send them to potentially dangerous places. Despite orders, Trump officials last week tried to expel a group of people from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba and other countries to South Sudan.
Murphy ruled that the flight violated his previous orders to demand due process, but the Department of Homeland Security still called a press conference to recite the criminal records of the expelled people, calling them "unique savage monsters." The White House bypassed the First Circuit Court of Appeals and filed an emergency appeal directly to the Supreme Court of Murphy's ruling.
Adam Cox, a New York University professor of constitutional law, told me that the Trump administration’s approach marks a “complete transformation of past practice.” But he said that it also affirms the importance of the lower courts as a powerful fact-finding agency when other oversight mechanisms are weakened or attacked. The ability of courts to force affidavits is crucial to helping the public classify through political speech to understand the actual situation.
“In court and politics, many of the focus of public debate has focused on Supreme Court and major legal rulings,” Cox wrote to me. “But in recent months, it has been a good reminder of the importance of the developed fact-discovery mechanisms of federal trial courts.”