Judge Delays Release of Abrego Garcia Amid ICE Concerns \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A judge delayed Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release amid legal disputes over potential deportation if he leaves jail. Though cleared for release, his attorneys fear ICE will detain and deport him before trial. The case highlights internal conflict between DOJ and DHS under Trump-era immigration policy.
Quick Looks
- Court ruling: A federal judge approved release with conditions, but no order has been filed.
- ICE risk: His attorneys fear immediate re-detention by immigration agents.
- Federal conflict: Judges criticized DOJ-DHS coordination failures as a “problem of their own making.”
Deep Look
The case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—once mistakenly deported to El Salvador and now facing federal human smuggling charges—has become a flashpoint in the ongoing battle over immigration enforcement and legal accountability under the Trump administration. Despite a magistrate judge ruling in favor of his release, conflicting agendas between federal law enforcement agencies are keeping him behind bars, highlighting systemic dysfunction within the executive branch.
Abrego Garcia’s legal saga began with a misstep by immigration authorities earlier this year. Though an immigration judge had previously determined that the Salvadoran national faced credible threats from gangs in his home country, he was nevertheless deported in March and placed in a notorious El Salvador prison. That mistake sparked public outrage, and Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States on June 7. But rather than being freed, he was arrested and charged with two counts of human smuggling, allegedly stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee during which he was found driving with nine passengers.
The core of the current legal standoff revolves around a ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, who found that Abrego Garcia was not a flight risk or a danger to the public. She even outlined release conditions, including supervised residence with his brother. However, Holmes stopped short of issuing the release order, acknowledging the jurisdictional limitations of her authority over ICE, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), not the Department of Justice (DOJ).
“I don’t think I have any authority over ICE,” Holmes said, reflecting the broader confusion over inter-agency power and coordination.
The hesitation stems from a real and unresolved threat: if Abrego Garcia is released from DOJ custody, ICE could immediately detain and potentially deport him again—despite the pending federal criminal charges. His defense team, led by attorney Sean Hecker, argues that allowing this would amount to obstruction of justice, especially given the Department of Justice’s role in prosecuting Abrego Garcia. They also point out that ICE has previously agreed not to deport witnesses testifying in related cases, suggesting selective enforcement based on political or procedural expediency.
Acting U.S. Attorney Rob McGuire, representing the government, acknowledged the lack of control DOJ has over ICE, even as he attempted to reassure the court he would “coordinate” with DHS. “That’s a separate agency with separate leadership and separate directions,” he told the court, underscoring the fractured nature of federal immigration enforcement under Trump-era directives.
The deadlock drew sharp rebuke from U.S. District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr., who denied a request from federal prosecutors to stay Holmes’ release order. In a sharply worded opinion, Crenshaw criticized the government for failing to resolve internal conflicts. “The Department of Justice and DHS can together prevent the harm the Government contends it faces,” he wrote, adding, “If the Department of Justice and DHS cannot do so, that speaks for itself.”
Though he allowed prosecutors to file a motion to revoke the release, Crenshaw’s message was clear: the government’s own bureaucratic dysfunction was the primary obstacle in this case, not the defendant.
The case has become deeply personal for Abrego Garcia’s family. His wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, has become a visible advocate, speaking emotionally about the 106 days her husband has spent detained—missing birthdays, holidays, and, as of Wednesday, their wedding anniversary. “Kilmar should never have been taken away from us,” she said at a press conference outside the courthouse. “This fight has been the hardest thing in my life.”
Abrego Garcia, who has lived in Maryland for more than a decade and is raising three U.S. citizen children with his American wife, maintains his innocence. His lawyers argue that the smuggling charges are politically motivated—a way to retroactively justify the March deportation. The charges stem from a traffic stop two years ago, yet the DHS investigation didn’t begin until April 2025, shortly after the media spotlight turned to the botched deportation.
Further complicating matters is Abrego Garcia’s deportation status. Though ICE cannot legally return him to El Salvador due to the credible threat determination by an immigration judge, he remains deportable to any third country willing to accept him and guarantee not to send him back to El Salvador. This legal gray area creates a chilling ambiguity that looms over his case.
An evidentiary hearing on the government’s motion to revoke his release is scheduled for July 16. Until then, Abrego Garcia remains in legal limbo—cleared for release by a judge, but effectively imprisoned by inter-agency gridlock. His case serves as a microcosm of the broader tensions between immigration enforcement and due process, especially under the shadow of Trump-era immigration crackdowns, where legal outcomes are often shaped as much by institutional chaos as by judicial clarity.
Judge Delays Release
You must Register or Login to post a comment.