Court Blocks Deportation; Abrego Garcia Returned From El Salvador

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national at the center of a high-profile deportation fight, is not being sent to Uganda. A federal judge has blocked any deportation to a third country and ordered the government to give 72 hours’ notice before any move is made.

As of August 24, 2025, Abrego Garcia has left criminal custody in Tennessee and is on his way to Maryland to reunite with family, according to court filings and statements from his attorneys. The most recent action in his case came on August 22, when a judge barred immigration authorities from detaining him upon release and halted any attempt to deport him to Uganda or any other country without clear, lawful steps.

Why the case drew national attention

His case drew national attention because the Trump administration deported him to El Salvador in March despite a 2019 immigration court order that protected him from removal to that country. A federal judge described the March deportation as “wholly lawless” and “shocking to the conscience,” and advocates say the episode shows how people can be harmed when agencies ignore court rulings.

The administration has defended a tougher approach to deterrence and to people it labels as public-safety risks, but the court found no evidence for claims that Abrego Garcia had ties to MS-13, a gang active in Central America and some parts of the United States 🇺🇸.

Timeline and movements

• Federal records show that on March 15, 2025, the government put Abrego Garcia on a plane to El Salvador, not Uganda, even though an immigration judge had granted him withholding of removal in 2019 because he faced persecution if returned.
• After weeks in one of El Salvador’s highest-security prisons, he was brought back to the United States 🇺🇸 in June—not for immigration processing, but to face criminal charges in Tennessee.
• On August 22, 2025, a federal judge in Maryland ordered his release from immigration detention and barred deportation to any country, including Uganda, without a formal, lawful process and advance notice to his legal team.

The judge’s order: core protections

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued the order after finding government officials violated court protections and due process when they sent him to El Salvador in March.

The order contains two core parts:
1. Immigration authorities may not detain Abrego Garcia when he leaves criminal custody.
2. The government cannot deport him to any country—including Uganda—without giving 72 hours’ notice to the court and his legal team and following lawful procedures.

Given the history of prior violations, Judge Xinis made clear any renewed deportation cannot happen without court review and notice.

Current status and criminal case

• He is traveling to Maryland, where he plans to stay with family while he continues to defend himself against federal human smuggling charges filed in Tennessee. He has pleaded not guilty.
• His trial is set for January 27, 2027.
• His lawyers have filed a motion to dismiss, arguing the charges are vindictive and selective because he pushed back against the government’s earlier removal actions.
• The government returned him to the United States in June to face those charges rather than reopening his immigration case; it has not conceded wrongdoing in the criminal matter.

Key, confirmed facts from court filings and public statements:
– No deportation to Uganda is planned or allowed under the current court order.
– 72 hours’ notice is required before any move to deport him to a third country.
– He cannot be detained by immigration authorities as he transitions from criminal to civilian custody.
– He was wrongly deported to El Salvador in March, in violation of a 2019 immigration court protection.
– He is en route to Maryland and will prepare for a January 27, 2027 trial in Tennessee.

What withholding of removal means

Withholding of removal (the 2019 protection) does not grant a green card, but it:
– Blocks deportation to a country where the person faces persecution.
– Allows work authorization and a degree of long-term stability.
– Is granted when evidence shows a clear risk tied to a protected ground (e.g., political opinion, membership in a particular social group).

An immigration judge found in 2019 that Abrego Garcia met this legal test and he lived and worked in the United States 🇺🇸 for years under that order. The March 2025 removal defied that legal finding.

Policy context and the use of foreign detention

When he was sent to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was placed in CECOT mega-prison, described by human rights groups as a symbol of mass incarceration in the region with limited access to lawyers and minimal due process. According to court filings, his detention was part of a broader U.S.–El Salvador arrangement under which some deportees are jailed on arrival and the United States helps pay for detention.

Officials defend cooperation with El Salvador as a deterrent. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem said the use of CECOT for deportees returned under certain agreements is “one of the tools in our toolkit that we will use.” Human rights advocates counter that such deals risk jailing people without trial and may violate U.S. court orders.

Judge Xinis ruled that sending him to CECOT violated existing legal protections. The order’s 72-hour notice requirement is intended to prevent a repeat of the rushed March removal and to give his lawyers and the court time to respond.

Family impact and background

• He first entered the United States 🇺🇸 in 2011 at age 16, after fleeing gang threats in El Salvador.
• He won withholding of removal in 2019, which allowed him to live and work in the U.S.
• The March deportation interrupted that stability. The June return and August release let him reunite with family in Maryland—at least for now.
• CASA and other local groups are supporting the family with court dates and documentation.

Practical lessons for other migrants

Lawyers highlight several practical takeaways:
– Keep copies of immigration court orders that grant protection, including withholding of removal or deferral of removal.
– If authorities move you in a way that seems to ignore a court order, contact a lawyer immediately and consider emergency relief in federal court.
– Stay informed about removal rules and options. The government’s page for Enforcement and Removal Operations explains basic procedures and offers contacts for case inquiries: https://www.ice.gov/ero.

The broader legal and political stakes

• Judge Xinis’s rulings illustrate how federal courts can enforce prior immigration protections even amid aggressive enforcement strategies.
• The administration’s arguments emphasize deterrence and public safety; supporters say the government needs speed and tools to fight smuggling and gangs.
• Critics say speed cannot replace due process and that foreign detention agreements risk legal overreach.
• The case leaves three key developments to watch:
  1. Whether the Tennessee court grants the defense motion to dismiss the criminal charges.
  2. Whether the administration attempts to restart removal under the 72-hour notice rule—and whether it would target a third country such as Uganda or revisit El Salvador.
  3. Whether Congress or courts act on the broader issue of using foreign detention for people protected by U.S. orders.

The court’s message in this case is clear: no deportation without notice, no detention without cause, and no return to unsafe places in violation of prior rulings.

Timeline of key dates and events

Current outlook

• There is no plan to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda under the current court order.
• He was wrongly deported to El Salvador in March, returned to the U.S. in June for criminal charges, and was released from custody on August 22 under a judge’s order that blocks deportation to a third country without 72 hours’ notice.
• He will live with family in Maryland while preparing his defense; the 72-hour notice rule remains in effect, and any attempt to change his status must go through normal legal channels.

No matter how the criminal case ends, the March deportation stands as a cautionary tale about the consequences of ignoring court orders—and as a reminder that the courts can and will intervene to protect established legal remedies.