Judge Questions DOJ Over Deportation Order in Abrego Garcia Case

WASHINGTON — November 21, 2025 — A U.S. District Court judge sharply questioned the Department of Justice on Thursday regarding its efforts to deport Abrego Garcia, a case that has drawn attention to the administration’s handling of migrant removal orders.

Judge Paula Xinis expressed skepticism about the government’s arguments during a hearing, describing the DOJ’s presentation as an “empty word salad” and indicating a desire to see concrete evidence supporting the removal order. The judge’s remarks underscored the scrutiny facing the administration’s immigration enforcement policies in federal court.

The case centers on Abrego Garcia, whose deportation order has been challenged by legal representatives citing procedural and substantive concerns. The government has maintained that the removal is lawful and justified under current immigration statutes, but the judge’s comments suggest the court is not yet convinced.

Officials said the Department of Justice has submitted documentation to support the removal but has yet to provide the level of detail the court appears to require. Judge Xinis’s pointed questioning during the hearing highlighted the tension between the judiciary’s role in reviewing executive actions and the government’s mandate to enforce immigration laws.

The hearing is part of a broader legal battle over the Trump administration’s immigration policies, which have faced numerous legal challenges since their inception. The administration has emphasized its commitment to enforcing immigration laws, while critics argue that some of its methods lack transparency and due process.

Legal experts note that Judge Xinis’s approach is consistent with a growing trend among federal judges demanding clear and thorough evidence before upholding deportation orders, particularly in cases involving complex immigration claims.

The outcome of the hearing could have significant implications for Abrego Garcia and others facing similar removal proceedings. A ruling against the government could delay or halt the deportation, while a decision in favor of the DOJ would reinforce the administration’s authority to carry out its immigration agenda.

The Department of Justice declined to comment on the ongoing proceedings. Advocates for migrant rights have called for greater oversight and fairness in deportation cases, emphasizing the human impact of removal orders.

As the case progresses, the federal court’s decisions may influence how immigration enforcement is conducted and reviewed in future cases, reflecting the ongoing debate over the balance between national security, legal standards, and humanitarian considerations.