Filed Date: May 21, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is a Salvadoran national who was mistakenly deported in March 2025. After filing a habeas petition, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction ordering his return to the United States. Upon return, he was indicted in the Middle District of Tennessee on two counts related to human trafficking. The criminal case is being heard by Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw.
The events of the habeas case and the criminal case are inextricably tied together. For this reason, the criminal proceedings have been thoroughly summarized (and are being regularly updated) in the summary for the habeas case. You can read that summary and see more information about the habeas case here.
Criminal Proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Upon Abrego-Grarcia’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.
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-Garciaa. 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.
Later on June 30, the government moved for a protective order that, among other things, would not permit Abrego's criminal defense team to disclose discovery material to witnesses in preparation for, during, or in review of their testimony. Abrego moved for his own protective order on July 8, 2025. Both parties met and conferred on a joint protective order that:
Motion for Emergency Relief
Following the government's statement that it intended to deport Abrego-Garcia upon his immediate release from Tennessee, the petitioner moved for emergency relief in the District Court of Maryland on June 26, 2025. Abrego-Garcia requested 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’s guidance. Abrego-Garcia refused to stipulate jointly.
On July 23, 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:
Ruling on Motion to Revoke in Tennessee Criminal Proceedings
In the criminal case, on July 24, 2025, Judge Crenshaw denied the administration’s motion to revoke the release order for Abrego-Garcia from criminal detention, noting 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.
Public Statements by Department of Homeland Security
Shortly after this decision was issued, Abrego-Garcia submitted a report to the criminal court claiming that DHS had made "inflammatory statements attacking Mr. Abrego and the judges presiding over both cases." The official DHS account issued the following tweet:
"This is a LAWLESS judge. This MS-13 gang member, human trafficker and illegal alien will never walk America's streets again."
Abrego-Garcia claimed that these tweets were likely to prejudice his right to a fair trial, in violation of Local Criminal Rule 2.01.
In response, the court commented in an order that it was not clear whether Local Rule 2.01 applied to DHS. However, Judge Crenshaw ordered that all counsel and any agencies working with counsel ensure that proper public communications preface that the indictment is only an allegation.
On August 25, Abrego-Garcia filed a second motion in support of an "Issuance of Order Requiring Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security Officials to Refrain from Making Prejudicial Extrajudicial Statements."
Motion to Modify Conditions of Release and Issue Release Order
Following the stay of Abrego-Garcia's release on bail, he moved for the criminal court to issue a release order upon the expiration of that stay consistent with the prior release conditions. However, he requested the following two modifications:
Abrego-Garcia requested that the release conditions be modified to reflect Judge Xinis' order for Abrego-Garcia to be returned to Maryland following his release from pretrial detention. In addition, the petitioner requested that the court add a release order stipulating that, should Mr. Abrego Garcia be taken into ICE custody following his return to Maryland, ICE ensure his attorneys can easily access him. The government did not oppose this motion. The court granted this motion on August 22, 2025. Abrego-Garcia was released later that day.
Supplemental Filings on Motion to Dismiss and Alleged Plea Deal
Following his release, 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'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."
Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive and Selective Prosecution
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(A)(iv) authorizes motions to dismiss an indictment for “selective or vindictive prosecution.” These motions are extremely rare. However, on August 19, Abrego-Garcia moved to dismiss his criminal indictment on these grounds. In his motion, Abrego-Garcia claimed that the criminal case revolved around a traffic stop that ended in neither arrest nor citation. The motion cited numerous statements made by the President and Attorney General Bondi suggesting that the current prosecution was motivated by a desire to punish Abrego-Garcia for filing a lawsuit against the government.
On October 3, the Court held that the totality of events created a sufficient evidentiary basis to entitle Abrego-Garcia to discovery and an evidentiary hearing to decide the motion.
Motion to Suppress
On October 10, Abrego-Garcia filed a motion to suppress the the evidence of his traffic stop and arrest. Abrego-Garcia alleged that the stop was unlawful and therefore, should be suppressed in court.
Department of Homeland Security Statement
In a court filing on October 24, 2025, the DHS disclosed plans to deport Abrego-Garcia to Liberia. DHS noted that "Liberia is a thriving democracy and one of the United States's closest partners on the African continent. . .committed to the humane treatment of refugees." The letter concludes by saying that Abrego-Garcia could be deported as soon as October 31, 2025.
Motions Regarding Admissible Evidence
On November 13, the government submitted notice to the Tennessee Court that it intends to offer evidence at trial that the defendant transported illegal aliens as part of a wide-ranging, long running criminal conspiracy designed to turn a profit. The United States claimed to desire to submit evidence toprovide context about the scope of "the conspiracy". The government claimed to have co-conspirators willing to testify to the nature of Abrego-Garcia's gang affiliation as well as his alleged abuse of "female aliens." Further, the government stated its intent to offer a domestic violence petition filed by the defendant’s wife to establish that Abrego-Garcia was subscribed to a cell-phone at the time that was allegedly connected to gang activity.
While the government's motion remained pending, Abrego-Garcia filed a number of motions requesting allegedly prejudicial evidence from his prior arrest be excluded and to prevent the government from using prejudicial language at trial.
Discovery Proceedings in Motion to Dismiss for Vindictiveness and Selective Prosecution
Despite Judge Crenshaw ordering discovery against the Trump Administration, DOJ officials largely refused to comply with Abrego-Garcia's discovery requests. Unsealed documents revealed that the government went as far as to move to quash subpoenas for DOJ Officials to testify at the evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss.
On December 3, Judge Crenshaw filed an order under seal requiring the DOJ to turn over many of the documents Abrego-Garcia requested. After reviewing over 3,000 documents, the court concluded that the final decision to seek the indictment could realistically be connected to Abrego-Garcia's win in the Maryland court.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Jinan Abufarha (8/6/2025)
Abrego Garcia v. Noem, District of Maryland (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13887221/parties/united-states-v-abrego-garcia/
Crenshaw, Waverly David (Tennessee)
Harley, Jason (Tennessee)
Allensworth, William Gilbert (Tennessee)
Dabbs, Jenna Minicucci (Tennessee)
Dean, Rascoe S. (Tennessee)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13887221/united-states-v-abrego-garcia/
Last updated March 7, 2026, 3:53 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations By the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 21, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
This is a criminal case.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Private Entity/Person
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia
Case Details
Other Dockets:
Middle District of Tennessee 3:25-cr-00115
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Affected National Origin/Ethnicity(s):