In recent court filings, the Department of Justice (DOJ) strongly objected to Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s extensive discovery request as he prepares for an evidentiary hearing concerning claims of vindictive prosecution. The DOJ cautioned a federal judge that endorsing Garcia’s broad and unfocused inquiry, which includes compelling Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to testify, would be “highly damaging.”

On Wednesday, Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Robert McGuire, filed a document revealing that Abrego Garcia had issued a subpoena for Blanche, who previously served as President Donald Trump’s criminal defense lawyer and currently holds the position of second in command at the DOJ. This action followed U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s conclusion that there was a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness” in the federal charges leveled against Garcia. Judge Crenshaw, appointed by Barack Obama, had made this determination weeks before.

Abrego Garcia was deported from Maryland in March and subsequently detained at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador. The Trump administration later admitted the deportation resulted from an “administrative error” and was instructed to facilitate his return, which occurred in June, shortly after a federal indictment was issued in Tennessee. The charges involved “smuggling illegal aliens,” allegedly linked to a 2022 traffic stop.

Garcia argued that the human smuggling charges were retaliatory, a consequence of the “embarrassment” his habeas corpus lawsuit caused the government. In early October, Judge Crenshaw ordered an evidentiary hearing, highlighting Blanche’s appearance on Fox News in June as potentially significant evidence supporting Garcia’s claims.

“To remove any doubt, Deputy Attorney General Blanche stated that the criminal case was initiated to return Abrego to the United States, not because of a judge, but due to an arrest warrant issued by a grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee,” the judge noted. “This could serve as direct evidence of vindictiveness.”

A DOJ footnote has now revealed that Abrego Garcia’s lawyers, in addition to seeking discovery of “internal governmental documents and communications,” subpoenaed Blanche, along with two other top officials, to testify in court under oath:

Indeed, it is clear that Defendant is not content to stop with this discovery. On October 20, defense counsel subpoenaed the Deputy Attorney General, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Counselor to the Deputy Attorney General, as well as two HSI agents, to testify at the evidentiary hearing.

The Trump administration, the footnote added, will vigorously and swiftly move to “quash the subpoenas” for the reason that “top executive department officials should not, absent extraordinary circumstances, be called to testify regarding their reasons for taking official actions.”

McGuire, citing his own “sworn affidavit” that he was the “sole decision maker” behind the charges and wasn’t directed by anyone else to bring them, expressed concern about the implications of Crenshaw permitting “overbroad, legally improper, and highly damaging” discovery that aims to pry into “predecisional” and “deliberative” internal DOJ documents “that are plainly privileged.”

The acting U.S. attorney essentially stated Abrego Garcia’s vindictive prosecution claim is “meritless on its face” because the top prosecutor said so.

“[T]he relevant prosecutorial decision-maker, the Acting U.S. Attorney, has explained on the record that this prosecution was not brought for vindictive or discriminatory reasons, and even if the motives of other Executive Branch officials were relevant, their public statements about Defendant reflect punitive and public-safety concerns that are plainly consistent with a legitimate motivation to prosecute him,” the filing said. “The motion to compel should be denied.”

A separate footnote said McGuire is prepared to testify under oath.

The judge recently rescheduled the evidentiary hearing for Nov. 4 and 5, when Abrego Garcia’s legal team and the DOJ will square off for argument on “all” pending pretrial motions.