A federal judge ordered the immediate release Thursday of an immigrant whose erroneous deportation to a notorious El Salvador prison transformed him into a flashpoint for Trump administration immigration policies, ruling that authorities lacked any legal basis to continue holding him while he fights to remain in the United States.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis directed Immigration and Customs Enforcement to free Kilmar Abrego Garcia from detention immediately, finding that federal authorities had re-arrested him following his return to America without lawful authority.
“For this reason, the Court will GRANT Abrego Garcia’s Petition for immediate release from ICE custody,” Xinis wrote in her ruling ordering his discharge from the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania.
The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized the decision and pledged to appeal, characterizing the ruling as “naked judicial activism” by a judge appointed during the Obama administration, the Associated Press reported.
“This order lacks any valid legal basis, and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts,” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said. The judge gave prosecutors until 5 p.m. EST to formally respond to the release order.
Xinis wrote that Abrego Garcia’s removal “cannot be considered reasonably foreseeable, imminent, or consistent with due process,” citing the absence of a final removal order, NBC stated. “Since Abrego Garcia’s wrongful detention in El Salvador, he has been re-detained, again without lawful authority.”
The ruling represents the latest development in a case highlighting the Trump administration’s enforcement tactics as President Donald Trump pursues what he has characterized as a mass deportation campaign.
After Abrego Garcia returned to the United States following his wrongful March deportation, the Trump administration detained him again and threatened to remove him to multiple African nations and Costa Rica. The judge found these removal threats lacked substance and that officials misled the court about deportation options.
“Respondents serially ‘notified’ Abrego Garcia—while he sat in ICE custody—of his expulsion to Uganda, then Eswatini, then Ghana; but none of these countries were ever viable options, and at least two had not even been asked to take Abrego Garcia before Respondents claimed supposed removal to each,” Xinis wrote.
The judge said the court was “affirmatively misled” by the government during a November hearing where administration officials claimed Liberia represented the only viable removal option and that Costa Rica had allegedly withdrawn an offer to receive Abrego Garcia.
“Costa Rica had never wavered in its commitment to receive Abrego Garcia, just as Abrego Garcia never wavered in his commitment to resettle there,” Xinis wrote in her memo.
Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said the ruling clarified that the government cannot detain someone indefinitely without legal authority and that his client “has endured more than anyone should ever have to.”
“At the same time, we are mindful of the government’s past conduct in this case and will stay vigilant to ensure that nothing undermines the court’s decision,” Sandoval-Moshenberg said in a statement.
Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national married to an American citizen with whom he has a child, has resided in Maryland for years but entered the United States illegally as a teenager. An immigration judge determined in 2019 that he could not be deported to El Salvador because he faced danger from a gang that had targeted his family.
When authorities mistakenly sent him to El Salvador in March despite the protection order, his case became a rallying point for critics opposing Trump’s immigration enforcement methods. A court subsequently ordered his return to the United States.
Since he cannot be removed to El Salvador, ICE has attempted to deport him to a succession of African countries. His federal lawsuit contends the Trump administration is illegally weaponizing the removal process to punish Abrego Garcia for the public embarrassment his wrongful deportation caused.
In ordering his release, Xinis wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court. “They affirmatively misled the tribunal.” The judge referenced the sequential list of four African countries officials claimed as removal destinations seemingly without securing commitments from those nations, as well as officials’ false assertions that Costa Rica withdrew its acceptance offer.
Xinis also rejected the government’s argument that she lacked jurisdiction to intervene regarding a final removal order for Abrego Garcia, determining no final order had been filed.
The judge’s scathing criticism of government conduct suggests a pattern of administrative dishonesty that undermined judicial proceedings. By documenting serial notifications of deportation to countries that had not agreed to accept Abrego Garcia, Xinis exposed what appears to be either bureaucratic incompetence or deliberate deception designed to maintain detention indefinitely.
The fabricated claim about Costa Rica withdrawing its offer represents perhaps the most damaging revelation, as it demonstrates officials made false statements directly to the court about a critical fact in the case. Such misrepresentations strike at the heart of the judicial system’s ability to function when courts must rely on government representations about deportation logistics and international negotiations.
Separately, Abrego Garcia is seeking to reopen his immigration case to pursue asylum in the United States, a process that could take months or years to resolve.
He also faces criminal charges in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling allegations. He has asked the federal court to dismiss the case, arguing the prosecution is vindictive. His Tennessee defense attorney, Sean Hecker, declined to comment.
A judge in the Tennessee case has scheduled an evidentiary hearing after previously finding some evidence that the charges “may be vindictive.” The judge noted several statements by Trump administration officials that “raise cause for concern,” including comments by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche that appeared to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he prevailed in his wrongful deportation case.
The potential vindictiveness finding in the criminal case adds another dimension to what Abrego Garcia’s legal team characterizes as government retaliation.
If prosecutors filed human smuggling charges in response to his successful challenge of the wrongful deportation rather than based on legitimate law enforcement priorities, such vindictive prosecution would violate constitutional due process protections.
The convergence of civil immigration proceedings, criminal charges, and allegations of government dishonesty creates an extraordinarily complex legal landscape.
Abrego Garcia simultaneously battles deportation efforts, defends against criminal allegations, and accuses federal officials of retaliatory prosecution while documenting instances where those officials misled a federal court.
For immigration attorneys and advocacy groups monitoring the case, Thursday’s release order represents a significant judicial rebuke of Trump administration detention practices.
The finding that ICE held Abrego Garcia “again without lawful authority” establishes precedent that could benefit other detainees challenging the legal basis for their custody.
However, the government’s vow to appeal means Abrego Garcia’s freedom may prove temporary if higher courts reverse Xinis’s decision. The administration’s characterization of the ruling as “judicial activism” signals its intention to pursue the case aggressively through the appellate system.
The deadline Xinis imposed for prosecutors to respond by 5 p.m. Thursday reflects urgency to implement the release order before government attorneys could seek emergency stays from appellate courts. Whether ICE complied with the release directive or whether prosecutors successfully obtained a stay will determine Abrego Garcia’s immediate fate.
Beyond the individual circumstances, the case has become emblematic of broader debates about immigration enforcement, due process, and government accountability.
Supporters view Abrego Garcia as a victim of bureaucratic error compounded by vindictive retaliation when he successfully challenged that error. Critics see him as someone who entered illegally, was properly ordered removed, and now exploits legal procedures to delay deportation.
The March wrongful deportation to El Salvador, where Abrego Garcia feared gang violence that prompted the original protection order, represented a catastrophic failure of the immigration system’s safeguards.
That an individual with a court order prohibiting removal to a specific country could be mistakenly deported there anyway suggests systemic problems beyond isolated error.
His subsequent re-detention and the documented pattern of government misrepresentations about removal options compound concerns about whether immigration enforcement operates with appropriate oversight and accountability.
The judge’s finding that officials “affirmatively misled” the court raises questions about institutional culture within agencies implementing deportation policies.
As Abrego Garcia emerges from detention pending appeals, his case continues to test fundamental questions about government power, judicial oversight, and the rights of immigrants caught in an enforcement system that critics argue prioritizes removal numbers over individual justice.
NBC/AP
