Filed Date: March 24, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On March 15, 2025, as reported by several news outlets, the second Trump administration deported almost 300 noncitizens—mostly Venezuelan nationals and some Salvadoran nationals—to El Salvador without going through any legal process in front of an immigration judge. Upon arrival, they were sent to the country’s mega-prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center or CECOT.
This lawsuit challenged the deportation of one of the Salvadoran nationals, who had actually won protection from removal several years before. (To see the Clearinghouse's collection of legal challenges to actions by the second Trump Administration, including related to immigration, click here.)
Complaint and TRO Motion Filed
This lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on March 24, 2025, by Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador, and his wife and minor child, both United States citizens. In 2019, Abrego-Garcia had won protection from removal from an immigration judge; he'd received a form of relief called “withholding of removal” to El Salvador. The lawsuit was filed against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the agency heads of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the ICE Baltimore Field Office Director, the U.S. Attorney General, and the U.S. Secretary of State. The plaintiffs alleged that the government deported Abrego-Garcia to El Salvador without any legal process and against the immigration judge's 2019 order, violating the Withholding of Removal Statute, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (Procedural and Substantive), and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Paula Xinis.
Also on March 24, the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO). News coverage reported that the administration acknowledged that Abrego-Garcia's deportation was an "administrative error" and claimed there was little the administration could do to get him back to the U.S.
April 4, 2025: District Court Granted Preliminary Injunction
On April 4, 2025, the court heard the plaintiffs' TRO motion (which the court construed as a motion for a preliminary injunction). Judge Xinis granted the motion that same day, stating in her written order that "issuance of a preliminary injunction without further delay is necessary to restore [the plaintiff who was deported] to the status quo and to avoid ongoing irreparable harm resulting from [his] unlawful removal." The court ordered the government to facilitate and effectuate the plaintiff's return to the U.S. by April 7, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. 2025 WL 1024654.
The DOJ's lawyer—who had been promoted to acting deputy director of DOJ's Office of Immigration Litigation just two weeks earlier—had conceded in court that the plaintiff's deportation should never have taken place, and said he would urge his client to take steps to bring Abrego-Garcia back. According to news reports, he was quickly suspended by the Attorney General for failing to "follow a directive from your superiors." Also, in a statement to The New York Times on April 5, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote, "[a]t my direction, every Department of Justice attorney is required to zealously advocate on behalf of the United States" and "[a]ny attorney who fails to abide by this direction will face consequences."
Government Appeal
Within hours, the government appealed the district court's April 4 preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The next day, the government requested both the district court and the Fourth Circuit for an immediate stay of the preliminary injunction. On April 6, the district court denied the stay. 2025 WL 1014261. On April 7, a Fourth Circuit panel denied the stay, stating, "[t]he United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process. The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable." 2025 WL 1021113.
The same day, April 7, the government filed an application with the U.S. Supreme Court to vacate the preliminary injunction entered by Judge Xinis and requested an immediate administrative stay. The application was docketed as 24A949. Chief Justice Roberts granted the administrative stay, and referred the application to the full Supreme Court; this paused the district court's order to return the plaintiff to the U.S. by April 7, 2025 at 11:59 p.m. Then on April 10, 2025, the Court ruled on the application: the deadline imposed by the district court had already passed due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice. The Court partially denied the application by holding that the rest of the district court’s order remained effective, but required clarification on remand. The intended scope of the word “effectuate” in the district court’s order was considered too vague. 145 S.Ct. 1017.
Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson, issued a separate statement. She wrote that she "would have declined to intervene in this litigation and denied the application in full" but "agree[s] with the Court’s order that the proper remedy is to provide Abrego-Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador."
Both the plaintiff and the government described the Supreme Court's decision as a victory. As reported in news coverage, a DOJ spokesperson said: “As the Supreme Court correctly recognized, it is the exclusive prerogative of the president to conduct foreign affairs . . . By directly noting the deference owed to the executive branch, this ruling once again illustrates that activist judges do not have the jurisdiction to seize control of the president’s authority to conduct foreign policy.”
Remand: Amended Preliminary Injunction Order
On April 10, 2025, on remand, Judge Xinis amended her earlier preliminary injunction. The amended order directed the government to take all available steps to facilitate the plaintiff's return to the U.S. as soon as possible. She also required the government to file a supplemental declaration by the next day, April 11, at 9:30 a.m. ET. A status conference was set to follow. 2025 WL 1085601.
On April 11, 2025, the government filed a motion requesting that the district court modify its order to allow them "a reasonable period of time to evaluate the Supreme Court’s order." They referred to the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs--noted in the Supreme Court's order--and continued, "that deference requires that the Executive be given a meaningful opportunity to review the Supreme Court’s decision before it is ordered to report what steps it will take in response to that decision."
Rather than accept the government’s' proposed modifications--which would give them until April 15 at 5 p.m. to submit their supplemental declaration and would push the hearing to April 16--Judge Xinis extended the filing deadline by a couple hours, to April 11 at 11:30 a.m. Shortly after, the government responded that they "are not in a position where they 'can' share any information requested by the Court" and that "[f]oreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review." Instead, they requested and "required" the opportunity to brief what it means to "facilitate" or "effectuate" the plaintiff's return prior to being subject to any compliance deadlines.
The status conference was held on April 11 (as originally scheduled), and within hours, Judge Xinis issued an order (at docket no. 51) finding that the government failed to comply with the court's order. She stated, "beginning on April 12, 2025, and continuing each day thereafter until further order of the Court, Defendants shall file daily, on or before 5:00 PM ET, a declaration." Additionally, a follow-up hearing was scheduled for April 15 at 4 p.m. 2025 WL 1095645.
On Saturday, April 12, 2025, the government reported to the district court that the plaintiff was "alive and secure" in the Terrorism Confinement Center in El Salvador and that he is "detained pursuant to the sovereign, domestic authority of El Salvador." They did not mention steps to facilitate his return to the U.S. (Reporting on other government communications regarding this case--including by President Trump--is included here.) The status report the following day, on April 13, stated there was no update.
El Salvador's President Bukele and President Trump Met at the White House
On Monday, April 14, 2025, El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele met with President Trump and cabinet members at the White House. During that meeting, President Trump and his team said it was up to the Salvadoran government to decide whether to return the plaintiff to the U.S., and the Salvadoran president responded that he would not do that. (Further coverage of the meeting was reported here.) After this meeting, the government's daily status report filed with the court stated, "in response to a question regarding Abrego Garcia, President Bukele said, 'I hope you're not suggesting that I smuggle a terrorist into the United States. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous.'"
District Judge Ordered Expedited Discovery
The next day, on April 15, a status conference was held before Judge Xinis. Afterward, she issued a written order which defined the word "facilitate" and disagreed with the government's narrow view (that "facilitate" is limited to "taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here"). She stated, "the record reflects that Defendants have done nothing at all." 348 F.R.D. 589.
As a result, her written order also granted the plaintiffs' motion for relief in the form of expedited discovery. The purpose is to "ascertain what, if anything, the Defendants have done to 'facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador'" including "what additional steps Defendants will take, and when, to facilitate his return." 348 F.R.D. 589.
Second Appeal to the Fourth Circuit
On April 16, 2025 the government appealed Judge Xinis's amended preliminary injunction order, and sought a stay in the district court and Court of Appeals of both the injunction and the discovery order.
The government labeled the discovery order a "fishing expedition, captained by plaintiffs armed with an open-ended mandate." It also argued that the district court has "inserted itself into the foreign policy of the United States and has tried to dictate it from the bench," now claiming that the plaintiff is "a member of a foreign terrorist organization (MS-13), who no longer has any right to withholding of removal in the first place."
On April 17, 2025 both Judge Xinis and the Court of Appeals (in an opinion by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson) denied the government’s requests for a stay. Judge Wilkinson held that although the court respects the Executive power, it will not allow the government to use that power to deport individuals without due process. The opinion mentioned the government's prior concession that the plaintiff was "mistakenly" deported, and expressed concern that now "the [executive and judicial] branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both." 2025 WL 1135112.
Maryland Senator Met with Plaintiff in El Salvador
On the same day (April 17), it was reported that Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen met with Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia at a hotel in El Salvador, after the Senator was denied entry to the prison where the plaintiff was detained. After the meeting, El Salvador's President posted on social media "now that he’s been confirmed healthy, he gets the honor of staying in El Salvador’s custody."
Ongoing Discovery/Negotiations
Discovery efforts continued, but on April 22, 2025, after a hearing, Judge Xinis criticized the government, accusing it of ignoring her orders and acting in bad faith by refusing to provide information. 348 F.R.D. 594.
Then on April 23, the government filed a sealed motion requesting a stay of the discovery order, and the plaintiff filed a sealed response. Judge Xinis granted a 7-day stay (until April 30), noting that the plaintiffs agreed with the request. Shortly after, Judge Xinis issued a revised scheduling order regarding expedited discovery through the end of May.
On May 6, 2025, media companies filed a motion to intervene and unseal the discovery-related court records. On June 4, 2026, the court granted the motion to intervene. On the same day, the motion to unseal was granted in part, ordering the unsealing of certain documents that were already part of the public record while protecting classified material. Judge Xinis held that the public enjoys a presumptive right to access court records, overcome only when outweighed by competing interests. 2025 WL 1582625.
On June 6, 2025, the government informed the court that it had "successfully facilitated Abrego Garcia’s return," and that he would stand trial on criminal charges in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The government asked that the preliminary injunction therefore be dissolved and all case deadlines be paused, explaining that it would soon request that the case be dismissed as moot.
The government filed a human smuggling indictment against Abrego-Garcia; press reports said that disagreement with how the prosecution was being handled prompted the criminal section chief's resignation in the U.S. Attorney's office that brought the case.
Criminal Proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Upon Abrego-Garcia’s return on June 6, 2025, an indictment filed on May 21 in the federal district court in Nashville, Tennessee, was unsealed. The indictment charged Abrego-Garcia with one count of conspiracy to transport undocumented individuals and one count of unlawful transportation of undocumented individuals. Abrego-Garcia made his initial court appearance that same day (June 6, 2025) in the Middle District of Tennessee before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes. (To read a summary of Abrego's criminal case click here.)
On June 9, 2025, the government requested a pretrial detention hearing. The court granted the request, but the judge ultimately denied the government’s motion to detain Abrego-Garcia. The government moved to stay that decision on June 22, 2025, but the motion was also denied. In her opinion denying the stay, Judge Crenshaw found that the government had not made a “strong showing” that the four stay factors weighed in the government's favor.
Abrego-Garcia remained in custody as the government and his attorneys submitted statements regarding potential release conditions. On July 2, the government moved for the court to revoke the magistrate judge's release order. The government made separate statements that once Abrego-Garcia is released from criminal custody, it will take him into immigration custody and again remove him to El Salvador.
In response, Abrego moved for the court to delay his release until the July 16 hearing on the government's motion for revocation. Abrego alleged that this would be the only way to ensure that the government does not remove him to a “third country" as soon as the court released Mr. Abrego from pretrial detention. The court granted this motion on June 30, 2025. On July 20, Abrego moved, with the government's consent, for a 30-day stay of the issuance of any release order. Abrego claimed he had been "advised by the government that if the Court denies the government's motion for revocation, the defendant would be transferred to the custody of [DHS], and DHS would begin removal proceedings."
Discovery Violations in Habeas Case
Despite the indictment, Abrego-Garcia continued with his habeas petition in the District Court of Maryland. On June 11, 2025, Abrego-Garcia moved for sanctions for discovery violations. Abrego-Garcia claimed that the government defied the court's order to return Garcia to the United States "as soon as possible" and that the record reflected a "pattern of deliberate delay and bad faith." Other allegations in the sanction included claims that the government's first interrogatory responses were frivolous, that the government failed to properly produce documents, and that the government obstructed depositions.
Motion for Emergency Relief
Following the government's statement, Abrego-Garcia moved for emergency relief in the District Court of Maryland on June 26, 2025. Abrego-Garcia requested that the court order the government to:
After a hearing, Judge Xinis ordered the administration to produce testimony on whether it intends to deport Abrego-Garcia if he is released from criminal detention due to a separate criminal case and the legal basis for any such removal. The administration informed the court yesterday that it will not deport Mr. Abrego-Garcia to El Salvador without first reopening his immigration proceedings and terminating his current status. The government added that, if it proceeds with deportation to a third country, it would follow the procedures outlined in DHS’ guidance. Abrego-Garcia refused to stipulate jointly.
On July 23, 2025, Judge Xinis granted Abrego-Garcia's motion to "Return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the District of Maryland After Release in the Tennessee Criminal Proceedings." Judge Xinis issued the following orders to the government:
Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and Order on Motion to Dismiss
After the preliminary injunction was granted by Judge Xinis, the government filed a motion to dismiss for mootness and lack of jurisdiction. The government argued that the original complaint is now moot since Abrego-Garcia's return to the United States has been properly facilitated.
In response to the government's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint as moot, Abrego-Garcia requested leave from the court to amend his complaint. Abrego-Garcia alleged that he had a whistleblower disclosure from a former DOJ official that the government acknowledged that the removal was "an administrative error." Still, according to the whistleblower, the government worked to prevent his return and made post-hoc justifications. Abrego-Garcia proposed to clarify relief sought to include restoring the status quo ante, which would require the government to return Abrego-Garcia to Maryland specifically, not only to the United States.
On July 9, 2025, Judge Xinis denied the administration’s two motions to dismiss.
Ruling on Motion to Revoke in Tennessee Criminal Proceedings
In the criminal case, on July 23, 2025, Judge Crenshaw denied the administration’s motion to revoke the release order for Abrego-Garcia from criminal detention, noting that the administration failed to justify continued pretrial detention. In his opinion, he described the allegations that Abrego-Garcia was a member of MS-13 to be bordering "on fanciful." For that reason, among others, the court ruled that the government had failed to show even by "clear and convincing evidence" that Abrego-Garcia is a danger to the community or that those concerns cannot be mitigated by the conditions of his release. Later that day, Magistrate Judge Holmes granted a 30-day stay of the order, keeping Abrego-Garcia in U.S. Marshal custody.
Motion to Ensure Compliance with Local Criminal Rule 2.01
On July 24, 2025, Abrego-Garcia filed a motion in the Tennessee District court to ensure compliance with Local Criminal Rule 2.01, which prevents prejudice and safeguards a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Abrego-Garcia alleged that the government made multiple inflammatory statements attacking him and the judges presiding over his criminal and immigration cases. The official DHS account on X posted a statement calling the Tennessee criminal court “LAWLESS.” The DHS Secretary for Public Affairs, Tricia McLaughlin, issued a statement calling Judge Xinis “unhinged” and labeling Abrego-Garcia an “MS-13 gang member” while expressing the intention to defy court orders. Abrego-Garcia argued that these kinds of statements are the kind that are likely to prejudice his right to a fair trial and taint the jury pool.
On July 31, 2025, the court ordered that all counsel and those working with counsel are subject to Local Criminal Rule 2.01 and Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8. The court also ordered that all counsel and those working with counsel ensure that any proper public communications include that the Indictment only contains allegations.
Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive and Selective Prosecution
On August 19, 2025, Abrego-Garcia filed a motion to dismiss the indictment for vindictive and selective prosecution, or, in the alternative, to order discovery and an evidentiary hearing on his claims. Abrego-Garcia argued that the government was punishing him for his audacity to fight back after his due process rights were violated, rather than accept a brutal injustice.
Supplemental Filings on Motion to Dismiss and Alleged Plea Deal
Following the stay of his release on bail, on August 23, 2025, Abrego-Garcia submitted a supplemental notice to offer further support for his motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. He alleged that "in a last-ditch effort to forestall" his release, the government informed Mr. Abrego-Garcia's counsel that if he extended the stay of his release to August 25, and pled guilty, then the government would deport him to Costa Rica after serving any sentence imposed by the court. When Mr. Abrego-Garcia declined this offer, an ICE representative allegedly informed Mr. Abrego's counsel that the government would deport him to Uganda if he did not plead guilty by Monday morning. Abrego-Garcia asserted that this was a retaliatory effort by the government to punish him for the "exercise of his legal entitlement to release under the Bail Reform Act and the Fifth Amendment."
Order on Motion for Emergency Relief
The District Court of Maryland, on July 10, 2025, held an evidentiary hearing for Abrego-Garcia’s June 26 motion for emergency relief. The hearing was completed on July 11.
On July 23, 2025, the court granted Abrego-Garcia’s June 26 motion for emergency relief. Judge Xinis held that the court must accord modest relief that ensures the fulfillment of the court’s injunction and protects Abrego Garcia from re-deportation without due process. 2025 WL 2062203.
Order on Motion for a Temporary Stay
On March 22, 2026, Abrego-Garcia filed a motion to temporarily stay all deadlines in the District Court of Maryland until the resolution of the government’s motion to dissolve injunctions in Abrego Garcia v. Noem, No. 8:25-cv-02780 (Abrego Garcia II). Abrego-Garcia contended that he would face hardship litigating on two tracks simultaneously when the outcome of one may materially affect the other.
The next day, on March 23, 2026, the court granted Abrego-Garcia’s motion for a temporary stay.
Order on Request for Discovery and Evidentiary Hearing
On October 3, 2025, Judge Crenshaw granted Abrego-Garica’s August 19 alternative request for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. Judge Crenshaw reserved Abrego-Garcia’s August 19 motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution pending discovery and an evidentiary hearing.
Supplemental Filing on Motion to Dismiss
On November 23, 2025, Abrego-Garcia submitted a supplemental notice to offer further support for his motion to dismiss for vindictive prosecution. He alleged that the government told Judge Xinis in the Maryland District court that Costa Rica “refuses to accept him,” which was revealed to be false through the Costa Rican Minister of Public Security’s statement to the Washington Post. In that statement, the Minister said that his country would receive Abrego-Garcia for humanitarian reasons.
Motion to Stay Deadlines
On January 5, 2026, the government filed a motion to stay any trial related deadlines pending further orders of the Tennessee District court. The government filed this motion because the court canceled the January 27, 2026 trial date, which was to be rescheduled after the court ruled on Abrego-Garcia's pending motion to dismiss. The next day, Judge Crenshaw granted the government’s motion to stay.
No further developments appear in the Maryland district court docket since the March 23, 2026 order, but the criminal case is actively being litigated in the Tennessee district court as of June 2026.
Summary Authors
Alexis Gil (6/29/2026)
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, District of Maryland (2025)
United States v. Garcia, Middle District of Tennessee (2025)
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, District of Maryland (2025)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/abrego-garcia-v-noem/
Last updated July 22, 2026, 4:42 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 24, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
A citizen of El Salvador—who in 2019 won an order from an immigration judge granting him a form of relief called withholding of removal to El Salvador, yet was deported to El Salvador in 2025 without any legal process—and his U.S. citizen wife and minor child.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Deparment of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Due Process: Substantive Due Process
Other Dockets:
District of Maryland 8:25-cv-00951
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 25-01345
Supreme Court of the United States 24-A-00949
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit 25-01404
Middle District of Tennessee 3:25-cr-00115
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Immigration/Border:
Case Summary of Abrego Garcia v. Noem, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46283/ (last updated 6/29/2026).