rewrite this title U.S. Continues to ‘Delay’ and ‘Flout’ Courts in Return of Deported Man, Lawyers Say

Lawyers for a Maryland man who was unlawfully deported to a prison in El Salvador assailed the Trump administration on Friday for trying to delay its explanation for how it plans to bring him back, calling the move a “stunning display of arrogance and cruelty.”

“The government continues to delay, obfuscate and flout court orders, while a man’s life and safety is at risk,” the lawyers wrote in court papers filed in the case.

On Thursday evening, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Trump officials needed to “facilitate” the return to the United States of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Salvadoran migrant who was flown from Texas to El Salvador on March 15.

The officials have already acknowledged that they made an “administrative error” when they put Mr. Abrego Garcia on the plane despite a previous court order that had expressly prohibited sending him back to his homeland.

As part of its ruling, the Supreme Court told the administration that it should be prepared to “share what it can concerning the steps it has taken” to get Mr. Abrego Garcia back on U.S. soil as well as “the prospect of further steps” it intends to take.

Echoing the justices’ demand, Judge Paula Xinis, who is handling the case in Federal District Court in Maryland, told the Justice Department to submit to her by 9:30 a.m. on Friday a written declaration of what the administration had already done and what it planned to do in its efforts to retrieve Mr. Abrego Garcia from El Salvador. Judge Xinis also set a hearing for 1 p.m. on Friday to discuss the next steps in the case.

But shortly before 9:30 a.m., the Justice Department asked Judge Xinis to postpone the deadline for its written filing until Tuesday and push off the hearing until Wednesday. Department lawyers said, among other things, they needed more time to review the Supreme Court’s order.

In an order of her own, Judge Xinis gave the government until 11:30 a.m. to file a written version of its plans, but refused to change the schedule for the hearing.

Clearly frustrated, she reminded the Justice Department that the administration’s “act of sending Abrego Garcia to El Salvador was wholly illegal from the moment it happened.”

Moreover, she said the department’s request for additional time to study a four-page Supreme Court order “blinks at reality.”

While the Supreme Court’s ruling appeared at first blush to be a victory for Mr. Abrego Garcia and his family, it contained a line that Trump officials could ultimately use to double down on their position that they cannot be forced to bring him back from El Salvador.

In their decision, the justices never defined what they meant by “facilitate and effectuate” his return, sending that question back to Judge Xinis to flesh out.

Indeed, the justices cautioned Judge Xinis that when she clarifies the steps the White House should take, her decision needed to be made “with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

Trump officials, throughout this case and others, have asserted that judges should not be able to intrude on the president’s right to manage foreign policy.