Judge to order Abrego Garcia's release but ICE plans to detain him
NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — A federal judge in Tennessee plans to order the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation to El Salvador has become a flashpoint in President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, while he awaits a federal trial on human smuggling charges.
But Abrego Garcia is not expected to go free because U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement will likely take him into custody and possibly try to deport him.
In a ruling on Sunday, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes denied the U.S. government’s motion to keep Abrego Garcia in detention before his trial. She scheduled a hearing for Wednesday to discuss the conditions of his release.
The U.S. government has already filed a motion to appeal the judge’s decision and is asking the judge to stay her impending release order.
Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken deportation in March to a notorious prison in El Salvador after the fact. That hearing was the first chance the Maryland construction worker had in a U.S. courtroom to answer the Trump administration’s allegations.
The smuggling charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers. Although officers suspected possible smuggling, he was allowed to go on his way with only a warning.
A federal indictment accuses Abrego Garcia of smuggling throughout the U.S. hundreds of people living in the country illegally, including children and members of the violent MS-13 gang. The investigation was launched weeks after the Supreme Court ordered the administration to facilitate his return from El Salvador amid mounting public pressure.
Holmes acknowledged in her ruling Sunday that determining whether Abrego Garcia should be released is “little more than an academic exercise” because ICE will likely detain him. But the judge wrote that the government failed to prove that Abrego was a flight risk, that he posed a danger to the community or that he would interfere with proceedings if released.
“Overall, the Court cannot find from the evidence presented that Abrego’s release clearly and convincingly poses an irremediable danger to other persons or to the community,” the judge wrote.
The acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, Rob McGuire, argued on June 13 that the likely attempt by ICE to try to deport him was one reason to keep him in jail.
The judge suggested then that the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security could work out between themselves whether the government’s priority is to try him on the criminal charges or deport him. No date has been set for the trial.
A 2019 immigration judge’s order prevents Abrego Garcia from being deported to his native El Salvador because he faces a credible threat from gangs there, according to Will Allensworth, an assistant federal public defender representing Abrego Garcia.
The government could deport him to a third country, but immigration officials would first be required to show that third country was willing to keep him and not simply deport him back to El Salvador, Allensworth said.
At the detention hearing, McGuire said cooperating witnesses have accused Abrego Garcia of trafficking drugs and firearms and of abusing the women he transported, among other claims. Although he is not charged with such crimes, McGuire said they showed Abrego Garcia to be a dangerous person who should remain in jail pretrial.
Most people in ICE custody who are facing criminal charges are not kept in the U.S. for trial but deported, according to Ohio State University law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández. The government would not need a conviction to deport Abrego Garcia because he came to the U.S. illegally.
However an immigration judge rules, the decision can be appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, García Hernández said. And the board’s ruling can then be contested in a federal appeals court.
___
Finley reported from Norfolk, Virginia.
🔮 Fortellr Predicts
Confidence: 80%
The ongoing legal battle involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia is expected to unfold with significant legal, social, and political ramifications. In the immediate aftermath of Judge Holmes's decision, ICE's active intervention suggests a rapid shift in the legal landscape, with immigration enforcement under intense scrutiny. Given the precedent of previous controversial deportations, the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security are likely to prioritize demonstrating their capacity to enforce current immigration laws amid public pressures and legal challenges. The likelihood of Abrego Garcia being taken into ICE custody remains high, with ICE possibly expediting efforts to deport him to a third country, circumventing deportation to El Salvador due to human rights concerns highlighted by the 2019 immigration judge's order. The interplay between judicial rulings and ICE's actions is poised to trigger discussions on the balance between national security interests and civil liberties, revisiting issues similar to past legal contests over wrongful deportations.
Public and policy responses are expected to vary, with advocacy groups potentially mobilizing rallies and legal petitions accusing ICE of overreach and advocating for immigration reform. This situation may also present an opportunity for legislators to review current deportation practices, possibly proposing new legislation to delineate immigration enforcement powers, ensuring more robust judicial checks. Such developments are likely to affect immigration debates in the U.S., fuelling partisan divides, particularly as former figures like Donald Trump continue to influence public discourse with calls for stricter immigration policies.
Systemic effects from Abrego Garcia's legal proceedings may include increased legal support mobilization, spotlighting hardships faced by undocumented immigrants, further complicated by current administrations' stringent immigration policies. Continuing legal battles would necessitate closer scrutiny of law enforcement and judicial decisions, particularly in high-stakes cases involving allegations of criminal activities intertwined with complex immigration statuses. Organizations monitoring immigration processes might leverage this case to exert pressure on federal administrations for greater transparency and accountability in immigration enforcement.
The cascading implications of this event include potential overhaul proposals in immigration policy, similar to past legislative shifts following notable deportations, driving discussions on the ethical considerations of current enforcement frameworks. Through these developments, the case is poised to remain a focal point in immigration discourse, signaling shifts that can alter broader U.S. immigration policy directions.