Federal Judge Rules Against ICE Re-Detention of Salvadoran National
In a significant immigration ruling, a federal judge has determined that Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot re-detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national whose case has become emblematic of broader immigration policy debates. The decision, handed down on Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland, centers on the expiration of a 90-day detention period and the government's failure to present a workable deportation strategy.
Expired Detention Period and Lack of Deportation Plan
Judge Xinis emphasized in her Tuesday order that the government's detention authority had lapsed after ninety days, and officials had demonstrated no realistic pathway for removing Abrego Garcia from the United States. "From this, the Court easily concludes that there is no 'good reason to believe' removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future," Xinis wrote, highlighting what she characterized as "one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success."
The government had proposed deporting Abrego Garcia to several African nations including Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia, despite having no formal agreements with these countries for such removals. Meanwhile, the judge noted the administration had "purposely—and for no reason—ignored the one country that has consistently offered to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee, and to which he agrees to go"—Costa Rica.
Complex Immigration History and Legal Battles
Kilmar Abrego Garcia's immigration journey spans years of legal complexity. He originally entered the United States illegally as a teenager and has since established a life in Maryland with his American wife and child. In 2019, an immigration judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador due to credible threats from gangs that had targeted his family. Despite this protection, he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador last year.
Following public outcry and judicial intervention, the Trump administration returned him to the United States in June, but only after securing an indictment charging him with human smuggling in Tennessee—charges to which he has pleaded not guilty. Throughout these proceedings, administration officials maintained he could not remain in the country while simultaneously failing to execute a viable removal strategy.
Legal Principles of Immigration Detention
Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia's attorney, argued successfully that immigration detention serves only to facilitate deportation and cannot function as indefinite punishment without a realistic removal plan. "Since Judge Xinis ordered Mr. Abrego Garcia released in mid-December, the government has tried one trick after another to try to get him re-detained," Sandoval-Moshenberg wrote in a Tuesday email. "In her decision today, she recognized that if the government were truly trying to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia from the United States, they would have sent him to Costa Rica long before today."
The ruling reinforces legal precedents establishing that immigrants cannot be detained indefinitely when deportation remains speculative rather than imminent. This case continues to unfold as Abrego Garcia faces separate criminal proceedings while his immigration status remains unresolved, highlighting the intricate intersections between immigration enforcement, international relations, and constitutional protections.
