The Justice Department's lawyer "put his foot in his mouth the minute he started and never seemed to get it out" in a recent hearing, according to a former prosecutor.
Ex-federal prosecutor Joyce Vance highlighted a high-profile case in which, as the Washington Post put it, "a federal judge in Maryland sharply rebuked a Justice Department attorney" after "an immigration official could not answer basic questions about the Trump administration’s plans to deport Kilmar Abrego García if he is released pending trial on federal human-smuggling charges against him in Tennessee."
In the Maryland hearing this week, "Judge Paula Xinis heard testimony from a witness she had directed the government to present, and it turned out that the testimony failed to answer some of the very basic questions she has about the case," according to Vance. She said they were questions such as, "What do you plan to do with Mr. Abrego Garcia if he’s released, and in what country, other than El Salvador, where the government is currently prohibited from sending him, might you dump him?"
Vance went on to ridicule the DOJ's position in the case.
"The government is taking a ridiculous posture, saying that unless and until he’s released from criminal custody in the Tennessee case, they aren’t making any plans at all—they just have some vague ideas about the possibilities," she wrote. "Given that this is the same government we now know from the Erez Reuveni whistleblower case doesn’t feel compelled to comply with courts that rule against Donald Trump’s desired course of action, it’s easy to understand why the Judge was skeptical of the government, telling their lawyers she could no longer presume they were acting in good faith at one point. The presumption of regularity entitles the government to an assumption by the court that its actions are valid and in accordance with the law, placing a burden on any party challenging it to prove otherwise."
Vance highlighted Xinis' comment to the DOJ lawyer: “You have taken the presumption of regularity and you’ve destroyed it in my view."
"The government acted like everything was business as usual and this was just an ordinary case. But this Judge understands that it is not. Abrego Garcia’s lawyers made such a modest request, functional due process, just a couple of days’ notice before their client is dropped in a hellhole like South Sudan," she wrote. "The government’s lawyer put his foot in his mouth the minute he started and never seemed to get it out. For starters, the Judge had asked yesterday for basic paperwork, the detainer that ICE was using to hold Abrego Garcia. But it took them until midway through the hearing to provide it to her. That’s an inexcusable failure on the government’s part that fairly shouts disrespect to the court."
The analyst continued:
"The government told Judge Xinis they can either deport Abrego Garcia to a third country of their choice or reopen withholding proceedings... But the government wouldn’t commit to either option or even hint at its thinking."
She added, "The Judge was righteously indignant that the government wouldn’t say what it wants to do, maintaining the fiction that some randomly assigned desk officer will decide what happens on the fly if Abrego Garcia is returned to their custody, just like they would in any normal case. It’s ridiculous. The government is saying 'f--- you' to the courts over and over again, and the courts seem to be getting the message."