(MARYLAND) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, on Monday, August 25, 2025, in Maryland and moved to start his deportation to Uganda under a new U.S.-Uganda agreement. Hours later, a federal judge issued an emergency order stopping any removal or change to his legal status until at least 4 p.m. Wednesday, August 27, 2025, unless the court extends it. The case, now before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, has become a test of how far the government can go, and how fast, when it tries to remove people with pending criminal and immigration matters.
The Department of Homeland Security has said Garcia is being “processed for removal” to Uganda. The Justice Department is pushing back against the judge’s order and similar rulings around the country, arguing such court blocks overstep judicial power and get in the way of enforcement. Garcia’s lawyers say the quick move to deport him ignores due process and skips a fair immigration hearing. That clash — between speed in enforcement and the right to a day in court — frames the fight now unfolding in Maryland.
Case background and timeline
The timeline is stark and complicated. Court filings say Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March 2025 and then held in a notorious prison. He was returned to the United States in June 2025 to face federal human smuggling charges, and a judge later released him from pretrial detention under conditions.
Key dates and events:
– March 2025: Garcia was mistakenly deported to El Salvador and detained there.
– June 2025: He was returned to the U.S. to face federal human smuggling charges.
– August 22, 2025: Garcia left custody on electronic monitoring and house arrest.
– August 25, 2025: ICE arrested him in Maryland and began processing him for removal to Uganda.
– January 2026: Trial set in his criminal case (planned for January 2026).
Garcia’s criminal case remains active while immigration authorities pursue removal.
Legal challenge and emergency order
Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, sued in federal court the day of the ICE arrest. He argues the government cannot deport Garcia before he gets a fair chance to contest removal in immigration court — especially while Garcia is complying with strict release terms from the criminal case.
The Maryland court responded with a temporary restraining order that blocks DHS and ICE from deporting Garcia or changing his legal status until the order expires or is extended. The emergency pause is part of a broader pattern this year of federal judges reviewing fast removals more closely.
What the order does:
– Blocks DHS and ICE from removing Garcia or altering his status before 4 p.m. on August 27, 2025, unless extended.
– Gives the court time to review the lawsuit claiming detention here is punitive and unnecessary given Garcia’s compliance with release conditions.
Current status:
– Garcia remains in ICE custody while the court reviews the case.
– The Justice Department is actively contesting the court’s intervention nationwide.
“The quick move to deport him ignores due process and skips a fair immigration hearing,” — Garcia’s legal team (paraphrased).
Step-by-step of events (concise)
- Garcia left federal criminal custody on monitored release.
- ICE arrested him on August 25, 2025, in Maryland and began removal processing to Uganda.
- His attorney filed a lawsuit to block detention and deportation before a fair immigration trial.
- The federal court issued a temporary restraining order halting deportation until at least August 27, 2025.
- The Justice Department is fighting the court’s intervention.
- Garcia remains in ICE custody while the court reviews the case.
Third-country deportation and the U.S.-Uganda agreement
The destination in this case — Uganda, not Garcia’s home country El Salvador — raises fresh legal and human-rights questions.
Details and concerns:
– DHS linked the removal to a mid-August 2025 agreement between the United States and Uganda to accept certain deportees, including some non-Ugandan nationals.
– Garcia’s legal team says he was previously offered a plea deal that would have sent him to Costa Rica, where he said he would accept refugee status.
– Lawyers argue the Uganda route would send him to a country where he has no ties, no support network, and no clear legal path.
Scholars and advocates warn that “third-country” removals can create new risks for deportees and raise due-process questions. Analysis by VisaVerge.com suggests the Uganda arrangement could face court tests and diplomatic review if similar cases multiply.
DHS position:
– Officials defend these removals as necessary to protect the public and enforce the law.
– They cite allegations against Garcia — which he disputes — as justification for swift action.
– The department frames third-country removals as part of a policy drive to remove individuals it deems threats.
Detention vs. alternatives
A central dispute is whether detention was necessary after Garcia had been complying with release conditions.
Arguments from Garcia’s side:
– ICE used jail despite electronic monitoring and house arrest having been effective.
– Less restrictive options were working; detention is therefore punitive and unnecessary.
Arguments from DHS/ICE:
– Detention ensures appearance at hearings and protects communities when risks exist.
– Officials say detention is sometimes required for enforcement and public safety reasons.
This tension — between detention for enforcement and community-based alternatives — runs through the case and broader debates over immigration enforcement policy.
Broader implications
The Maryland case is being watched for how it might shape future use of third-country removals.
Possible outcomes and effects:
– If the restraining order is extended, there could be more time for briefing and possibly a hearing; other detainees might get similar pauses.
– If it is lifted, DHS could proceed with deportation under the Uganda agreement, potentially making the pact a regular removal tool.
– A ruling narrowing when ICE can use third-country removals could slow many planned deportations.
– A ruling favoring DHS might accelerate use of bilateral arrangements like the Uganda pact.
Human-rights concerns:
– Advocates warn about sending people far from family, community, and legal support.
– Administration officials counter that public safety and border control require firm action and that bilateral deals help meet those goals.
Practical and legal complications
Officials confirm the criminal trial remains scheduled for January 2026, which raises practical legal questions:
– How to balance a pending federal trial with a removal plan to a non-native country?
– Deporting a defendant before trial can complicate prosecution and defense, yet the government often moves forward if it believes removal is lawful.
Garcia’s team asserts that deportation now would deprive him of the chance to contest both the criminal charges and the immigration case in the United States.
Where to find official information
For background on detention and removal operations, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations maintains public resources at https://www.ice.gov. These pages explain custody, removal flights, and coordination with partner countries. They do not address Garcia’s case specifically but provide context for how ICE conducts arrests and removals under federal law.
What happens next
The next 48 hours are critical:
– Judge Xinis can extend the emergency order, allowing more time to weigh arguments, or let it expire, reopening a path to deportation.
– The Justice Department is expected to argue that Congress gave the executive broad power over removals and that district courts should not block that power with emergency orders.
– Garcia’s counsel will likely emphasize constitutional claims, his record of compliance with monitoring, and the risks of sending a Salvadoran to Uganda under a pact they say was not meant for people with no ties to that country.
The stakes go beyond one man: the court’s decision could influence how third-country deportations are used nationwide and affect many planned removals.
Garcia remains in ICE custody tonight. His deportation is paused for now, and the legal fight over judicial authority, removal timing, and the reach of the U.S.-Uganda agreement continues to unfold in Maryland. However the judge rules, the case highlights the central trade-offs in immigration enforcement in 2025 — from detention and third-country removals to the tension between swift action and due process in U.S. courts.
This Article in a Nutshell
ICE arrested Kilmar Abrego Garcia on August 25, 2025, to deport him to Uganda under a U.S.-Uganda pact. A federal judge barred removal until at least August 27 while reviewing a lawsuit claiming the deportation would deprive him of due process amid pending criminal charges.
