U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Maryland, is tearing into the Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) with a sharpness that could cut through bureaucratic fog, as Talking Points Memo reports. The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man detained in El Salvador, has exposed what looks like a masterclass in courtroom delay and defiance. This isn’t just a legal spat; it’s a window into how far some will go to dodge accountability.

The saga, stretching over four months but feeling like an eternity, centers on whether Abrego Garcia will face deportation again if released from criminal custody in Tennessee, with Judge Xinis poised to rule soon on his urgent requests for protection.

Back in March, this case kicked off with Abrego Garcia’s plight -- wrongfully held for about 10 weeks in El Salvador’s CECOT facility, in clear violation of an immigration judge’s order not to send him to that particular country. The Trump administration’s response, at least in Xinis' eyes? A playbook of stalling tactics and shifting arguments that could make even the most patient jurist lose their cool.

Judge Xinis confronts DOJ tactics

Judge Xinis hasn’t minced words, calling the government’s conduct an “insult to my intelligence.” That’s not just a zinger -- it’s a signal that, the DOJ’s habit of obstructing discovery and shielding officials from scrutiny isn’t flying in her courtroom.

While conservatives often cheer strong executive action, this kind of legal foot-dragging risks undermining trust in the very system we claim to uphold.

The administration’s approach has been, the judge says, anything but consistent, rotating political appointees as counsel instead of relying on career lawyers -- a departure from past norms.

One attorney, Sarmad M. Khojasteh, joined the DOJ in April with no prior case involvement, yet led hearings for two days, fumbling with case history and earning sharp rebukes from the bench. It’s hard not to wonder if this musical chairs strategy is less about competence and more about dodging accountability.

Another DOJ lawyer, Bridget O’Hickey, only entered her appearance mid-week despite arguing half the government’s case on Monday. This revolving door of representation isn’t just sloppy -- it makes it nearly impossible for Judge Xinis to pin down who’s truly calling the shots, she says.

Witness testimony questioned

Then there’s a witness-related debacle -- ICE’s Thomas Giles, interim assistant director for enforcement, was trotted out despite having no direct knowledge of Abrego Garcia’s situation until the day before he testified.

“I have very little experience with third-country removals,” Giles admitted, noting he hadn’t processed such a case in 18 years. If that’s the best the government can muster, it’s no surprise the judge found the evidence “not credible.”

Giles’ preparation? A cursory email search and a glance at a summary -- hardly the deep dive one might expect for a case handled at Cabinet and White House levels. Judge Xinis wasn’t buying it, remarking, “He didn’t call anyone. He didn’t read anything.”

What should have been a one-hour hearing stretched into four, thanks to Giles’ evasive, circular responses. The judge’s frustration was palpable: “It defies reality that this is going to be left to a desk officer.” For those of us who value straight talk over progressive doublespeak, this kind of bureaucratic smokescreen is exactly why skepticism of government overreach remains warranted.

Abrego Garcia’s fate still in balance

At the heart of this legal storm is Abrego Garcia’s emergency motion, argued on Friday, seeking 72 hours’ notice before any removal to a third country and a return to Maryland, where he lived before being sent abroad. With criminal charges pending in Tennessee, he could be released from custody as early as next week, raising the specter of swift deportation.

The judge’s concern is clear: “If past is prologue, Mr. Abrego Garcia will be moved … and before we know it he’s on a plane and I’ve lost jurisdiction.” That’s not just judicial caution; it’s a damning critique of an administration that seems more focused on outcomes than process. Even for those of us who support tough immigration enforcement, fairness in the courts must remain non-negotiable.

Hearings this week, spanning three days, saw different DOJ lawyers each time, further muddying the waters. An evidentiary session, expected to be brief, dragged from yesterday afternoon into the morning due to the government’s unpreparedness. It’s a pattern that doesn’t just frustrate the court -- it erodes confidence in a system conservatives often defend as the backbone of American justice.

Balancing enforcement with accountability

Judge Xinis’ struggle to secure testimony from officials with real decision-making insight over these four months speaks volumes. High-level involvement from the White House and Cabinet suggests this isn’t a routine case, yet the government insists a low-level officer will decide Abrego Garcia’s fate post-release. That claim drew a sharp retort: “The more you press that, the more concerned I am.”

Even as a supporter of robust border policies, one can’t help but empathize at least somewhat with Abrego Garcia’s limbo -- wrongfully detained once, now facing an uncertain future. The Trump administration’s courtroom antics, from firing a career attorney early on to deploying political appointees en masse, raise questions about whether the ends justify these means. Transparency, not obfuscation, should be the hallmark of any policy we back.

Ultimately, this case isn’t just about one man’s fate -- it’s about whether the rule of law applies equally to those enforcing it. Judge Xinis’ skepticism, voiced as “grave concerns” for Abrego Garcia’s future, mirrors a broader unease about unchecked power. Let’s hope her ruling brings clarity, because if there’s one thing on which conservatives and progressives alike should agree, it’s that justice delayed is justice denied.