Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia asked a federal judge in Tennessee to limit public comments by senior Trump administration officials about his human smuggling case, arguing their statements threaten his right to a fair trial. He has pleaded not guilty, and his trial is set for January.
Lawyers for Kilmar Abrego Garcia have asked a federal judge in Tennessee to limit what senior Trump administration officials can say publicly about his criminal case, arguing that repeated statements by top officials have made it hard for him to get a fair trial.
The request, filed Thursday night, Aug. 28, asks the court to order officials “involved in this case, and all officials in their supervisory chain, including Attorney General Bondi and Secretary Noem,” to restrict their public comments, according to The Associated Press. Abrego Garcia faces federal human smuggling charges in Tennessee and has pleaded not guilty. His trial is scheduled for January.
What the defense is asking for
The defense argues that officials have made “highly prejudicial, inflammatory, and false statements” about Abrego Garcia and have “expressed the opinion that he is guilty of the crimes charged and far worse.”
Among the comments cited in the filing, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has described Abrego Garcia as an MS-13 gang member and “a horrible human being and a monster.” Attorney General Pam Bondi told President Donald Trump that Abrego Garcia “needs to be in prison, he doesn’t need to be on the streets like all these liberals want him to be,” the filing says.
Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have denied that he is a member of MS-13, and he has not been charged with any gang-related crime.
Courts can limit public statements by parties and lawyers in a criminal case when there is a substantial risk of prejudicing a jury, but requests aimed at senior executive branch officials are uncommon.
Earlier order from the judge
The case is before U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr. in Nashville. In late July, Crenshaw issued an order to the lawyers in the case directing that any public communications about it note that “the Indictment only contains allegations.” He wrote: “Our Constitution requires that Abrego is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.”
The new motion asks the court to go further and extend limits to officials outside the prosecution team who oversee the agencies involved.
Government response
The Justice Department declined to comment on the filing, as did Acting U.S. Attorney Robert E. McGuire, whose office is prosecuting the case, the AP reported.
The Department of Homeland Security said in an emailed statement that media coverage of Abrego Garcia amounted to a “sob story” that has “completely fallen apart.” The department added: “If Kilmar Abrego Garcia did not want to be mentioned by the Secretary of Homeland Security, then he should have not entered our country illegally.”
How the case got here
Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who had been living in Maryland, was deported in March to a prison in El Salvador despite a 2019 immigration court order that barred his removal to that country. The administration later acknowledged the deportation was an error. After the Supreme Court said the government must facilitate his return, he was brought back to the United States in June to face the smuggling charges, which stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee.
A federal judge in Tennessee later released him from jail before trial, finding he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. He was taken back into immigration custody on Monday, Aug. 25, when he reported to immigration authorities in Baltimore.
The administration has said it intends to deport him to Uganda before his criminal trial and argues that he is dangerous. His immigration lawyers have said he will seek asylum. A federal judge in Maryland has temporarily barred his removal from the United States while his legal challenge proceeds.
What comes next
Judge Crenshaw has not yet ruled on the request. Separately, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers have sought to have the smuggling charges dismissed, arguing that the prosecution is vindictive and a response to his successful challenge of his deportation. The government denies that claim.
The outcome of the gag order motion could shape how officials talk about one of the most closely watched immigration cases of Trump’s second term in the months leading up to trial.
Source: News4JAX
