A federal judge on Wednesday handed down two major rulings in the case of a Salvadorian migrant deported from Maryland, drawing renewed scrutiny to the government's handling of immigration cases under former President Donald Trump's administration.

According to Fox News, Judge Paula Xinis authorized the unsealing of court documents and a hearing transcript in Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s legal battle while also permitting his attorneys to pursue sanctions against the Trump administration for actions surrounding his deportation.

Garcia, a Salvadorian national, was deported in March following what U.S. officials have acknowledged was a mistake. His removal from the United States sparked ongoing legal disputes over government compliance with court-ordered directives to return him.

Legal Team Gains Sanctions Option

On June 4, Xinis ruled that Garcia's legal team could file a motion seeking sanctions against officials in the Trump administration. That motion must be submitted by June 11. The judge did not hint at how she might rule on the future motion but indicated her openness to the concerns raised by the legal team.

In a separate decision that same day, Xinis granted a request from a group of 14 prominent media entities to make certain legal records in the case accessible to the public. The coalition included outlets such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, and NPR.

The judge directed the government to release several previously sealed filings and disclose the transcript from a hearing held on April 30. These additions are expected to bring new public insight into the federal government’s actions in Garcia’s case.

Transparency and Public Trust Emphasized

Xinis, in her reasoning, said public access to court materials is crucial to reinforcing public confidence and accountability in the judiciary. She stressed that it serves to “curb judicial abuses” and leads to “a better perception of fairness.”

The legal battle surrounding Garcia's deportation has persisted since the spring, following a decision from the U.S. Supreme Court that upheld a lower court's mandate calling for Garcia’s return. However, confusion surrounding the definition of the government's obligation to “facilitate” his return has led to repeated disputes in court.

Xinis criticized the federal government for what she described as a pattern of sidestepping its legal responsibilities. She accused officials of providing answers during discovery that were too vague and said they demonstrated a lack of good faith.

Government under Fire for Conduct

In a prior ruling, the judge had already imposed an expedited timeline on the government to show evidence of compliance. Despite that, her recent remarks cited what she saw as delays and noncompliance.

Judge Xinis has expressed growing frustration with government officials during various proceedings, saying the continued arguments over what amounts to return assistance were comparable to “beating a frustrated and dead horse.”

Apart from this case, there are signs of a broader pattern. Reports suggest that the Trump administration has been similarly resistant in other deportation cases involving migrants sent to El Salvador.

Use of Old Law Stirs Controversy

The administration has relied on the Alien Enemies Act, a more than two-century-old law originally passed in 1798, to speed up the deportation of certain migrants this year. Critics argue the law’s use in present-day immigration enforcement raises legal and ethical questions.

In Garcia’s case, the government has attempted to justify its actions by asserting he may be linked to gang activity, specifically MS-13. However, no formal evidence has been submitted to support that claim in court.

Court battles have persisted over what practical steps the government must take to adhere to the return order issued by the judiciary. The unresolved nature of those duties continues to fuel litigation.