This may morally require my appearance — in Music City — come November 3. It is increasingly likely that Mr. Abrego-Garcia walks free that evening. The entire Noem-led indictment is vindictive BS.

Here’s that latest three page scheduling order (as a .pdf file — and a bit, below). Buckle up!

…[T]he Government [has] indicated it would not file any pretrial motions. It did not.

Defendant indicated he would file three pretrials motions: (1) a motion to suppress related to the November 2022 traffic stop; (2) a motion to suppress any statements made by Defendant during a custodial interview in March 2025; and (3) a motion to strike surplusage in the indictment. Defendant, as represented, filed two Motions to Suppress (Doc. Nos. 151 and 155) and a Motion to Strike Surplusage (Doc. No. 158).

As set in the August 7, 2025 Scheduling Order (Doc. No. 103), responses to pretrial motions are due on October 24, 2025, and replies are due on October 31, 2025….

Onward, grinning. Ever, grinning — with video of the local public school closure protests later, tonight. Out.

नमस्ते

Sean Hecker is a great lawyer — no doubt about it. And with each passing day, I am more convinced that he may be the best US immigration litigator I’ve ever seen — and I’ve seen a LOT of them.

Tonight’s filing cements that impression — in my mind. Here it is, and a bit:

…The government has made something of a habit of stonewalling when it comes to Mr. Abrego. Cf. Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-cv-00951, 2025 WL 2062203, at *2 (D. Md. July 23, 2025) (“For three months after this Court issued the injunction, Defendants disclaimed any authority to facilitate his return and disregarded court orders. Defendants’ defiance and foot-dragging are, to be sure, the subject of a separate sanctions motion…. The Court will not recount this troubling history in detail, other than to note Defendants’ persistent lack of transparency with the tribunal adds to why further injunctive relief is warranted.”)….

[T]he privileges the government has indicated it will assert — deliberative-process privilege, executive privilege, and the attorney work-product doctrine — simply do not apply. As Mr. Abrego’s response to the government’s status report already explained, all three are “qualified,” as opposed to absolute, privileges. They give way, as a general proposition, upon a showing of substantial need — which Mr. Abrego has already made here. And they also give way in a criminal case where they are necessary to establish a defense — as they are here. Moreover, they cannot be invoked to shield evidence of government misconduct in the face of an order seeking discovery to assess the nature and extent of that misconduct. (See generally Dkt. 148).

Second, even if the government had some theoretical privilege claim over some subset of the documents that could survive the analysis just discussed, asserting privilege requires more than the mere blanket assumption that all relevant materials would be privileged without so much as collecting or glancing at them….

Mr. Hecker will not let Noem slide by… and delay forever. Nor will the capable USDC Judge Crenshaw in Music City. Stay tuned.

नमस्ते