(UNITED STATES (MARYLAND)) The Trump administration has asked a federal judge in Maryland to dissolve a court order that blocks the removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, seeking to deport him to Liberia even as his lawyers say the government is sidestepping due process and ignoring his stated safe-destination choice. The motion follows months of litigation over how and where the government can send the Salvadoran national, who was previously deported to El Salvador in defiance of a standing federal court order, held for 26 days inside El Salvador’s CECOT mega-facility, and then ordered returned to the United States.
Abrego Garcia, who lived in Maryland with his wife and children, is detained in Pennsylvania as of November 8, 2025, while the U.S. District Court in Greenbelt weighs whether to allow his transfer to Liberia to move forward. On November 7, 2025, his attorneys urged Judge Paula Xinis to keep the removal ban in place until an immigration judge reviews the denial of his reasonable fear claim by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). They argue the government has sped ahead without the “notice, opportunity to be heard and individualized assessment that due process requires,” and without honoring his “statutory designation” of Costa Rica as the country that has agreed to take him.
The clash pits the Trump administration’s broader 2025 enforcement agenda against the limits of court oversight in third-country removals. The Department of Justice (DOJ) says Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13 and that removing him is “in the public interest.” DOJ lawyers told the court it has obtained assurances from Liberia that he will not be persecuted or tortured there, and on that basis, the administration says the preliminary injunction should be lifted. In a filing, DOJ attorneys wrote:
“The Constitution does not entitle Petitioner to process beyond what the political branches have chosen to afford.”
Abrego Garcia denies any MS-13 ties, saying he lived in the United States for about a decade without criminal charges until these proceedings. After the Supreme Court intervened this spring, he was returned to the U.S. in June 2025 to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee, to which he has pleaded not guilty. The administration maintains those charges, combined with alleged gang affiliation, justify moving him swiftly to a third country. His lawyers say the government’s claims are unproven and do not erase the constitutional and statutory protections that apply when the state seeks to remove someone to a place where they fear harm.
The case burst into national view in March 2025, when U.S. officials deported Abrego Garcia to El Salvador and transferred him into CECOT prison despite a 2019 order barring his removal to that country because of his fear of persecution. Judge Paula Xinis later described CECOT as “one of the most notoriously inhumane and dangerous prisons in the world” that “by design, deprives its detainees of adequate food, water, and shelter, fosters routine violence,” and placed Abrego Garcia “with his persecutors.” She found that leaving him there “would constitute irreparable harm.” In a separate set of proceedings, the Supreme Court acknowledged that his removal to El Salvador was “illegal” and the result of an “administrative error,” even as it noted the government’s public-safety concerns.
Judge Xinis ordered the government to bring him back to U.S. soil, directing officials to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7,” after determining he had been deported without judicial documentation and in violation of the existing order. It took 26 days from his transfer into CECOT before he was returned under Supreme Court order. Since then, the administration has tried to move ahead with third-country removals, cycling through Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and now Liberia as potential destinations, according to his lawyers.
Abrego Garcia’s counsel told the court that the government has brushed aside Costa Rica, which they say has formally indicated it would accept him and consider him for refugee or resident status. They argue that U.S. law allows a person facing removal to identify a safe third country, and that the administration has disregarded that “statutory designation” while attempting a series of transfers to countries with which he has no ties. They say the government’s approach—first to El Salvador despite the court ban, and now to Liberia—proves that officials are prioritizing speed and optics over lawful process.
The DOJ rejects that characterization, saying it has a lawful basis to proceed and that diplomatic assurances from Liberia meet the concerns raised in prior injunctions. Its filing argues that the Constitution does not obligate more process than the political branches have granted for such removals, and that the agency record supports proceeding now. In one brief, government lawyers wrote:
“The Constitution does not entitle Petitioner to process beyond what the political branches have chosen to afford.”
Abrego Garcia’s team responded that the administration is relying on thin, unreviewed administrative notes and one officer’s determination to push a person toward potential danger.
“The Government insists that the unreasoned determination of a single immigration officer—who concluded that Abrego Garcia failed to establish that it is ‘more likely than not’ that he will be persecuted or tortured in Liberia—satisfies due process. It does not,” they wrote.
The Supreme Court’s earlier involvement has shaped the courtroom arguments now unfolding in Maryland. While the justices used unusually stark language—calling the El Salvador removal “illegal” and an “administrative error”—they also allowed the administration to proceed in a separate Massachusetts class action addressing third-country transfers. The Trump administration now points to that green light as validation of its broader strategy and says the Maryland lawsuit should not be used to block actions that higher courts have already permitted in a different forum.
That broader strategy has been documented by legal observers this year, including the New York City Bar Association, who describe a push to expand detention, accelerate removals, and narrow humanitarian relief options. For families like Abrego Garcia’s in Maryland, the effect has been immediate and personal. His wife and children have seen him shuffled among jurisdictions, moved to a high-security prison outside the United States, and returned to face federal charges far from home. His lawyers say this constant movement has hampered his ability to pursue protection claims or compile a full record. The administration, in turn, says those practical difficulties do not override the government’s responsibility to remove noncitizens who lack a lawful basis to remain and who, in its assessment, pose public safety risks.
At the heart of the current dispute is the “reasonable fear” process, the expedited protection screening for people with prior removal orders who claim they would face persecution or torture if sent to a particular country. USCIS initially determined that Abrego Garcia did not meet the “more likely than not” threshold for persecution or torture in Liberia, and his lawyers are now seeking immigration judge review of that negative finding. That appeal route is standard in removal cases, and the defense team argues the court should maintain the injunction until that review is finished. For readers seeking a concise explanation of this process, the Executive Office for Immigration Review provides official resources on immigration judge proceedings and appeals.
The administration says such review is not a necessary condition for lifting the injunction in this case, given what it describes as adequate diplomatic assurances and the public interest. DOJ officials have also emphasized the criminal case in Tennessee, saying the pending charges underscore the rationale for removal. Abrego Garcia has entered a not guilty plea and maintains he had never been charged with a crime before this year’s prosecutions. He denies the MS-13 label entirely.
The conditions inside CECOT continue to loom large over the proceedings. In her earlier order, Judge Xinis cited evidence describing inadequate food and water and routine violence, concluding that keeping Abrego Garcia there risked immediate harm. Her description of CECOT as “one of the most notoriously inhumane and dangerous prisons in the world” has become a focal point for his defense, which argues that the government’s willingness to send him to El Salvador despite her 2019 bar shows why robust judicial supervision is essential now. The government counters that the El Salvador transfer was a mistake corrected by subsequent court orders and should not control the analysis of a removal to Liberia, where assurances have been given.
Procedurally, the administration has asked Judge Xinis to dissolve the preliminary injunction, arguing that the balance of equities now favors removal. Abrego Garcia’s counsel is seeking continued protection at least until an immigration judge reviews the reasonable fear denial, and until the court can fully assess whether the government has followed required notice and hearing procedures for selecting a third country. They also argue that the four proposed destinations—Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and now Liberia—reflect a “cycled through” approach that undermines any claim of individualized assessment. The government maintains it is working within diplomatic options that are available at any given moment and that the law does not require the personalized process his attorneys demand.
The stakes extend beyond a single case. The Trump administration has framed its 2025 immigration push as a return to stricter enforcement, encompassing stepped-up removals, expanded detention, and tighter standards for relief. The federal courts, including Judge Xinis’s docket in Maryland and the Supreme Court’s interventions, are now defining how far that program can go when the person targeted for removal has previously been found at risk in one country and disputes the safety of another. Lawyers across several jurisdictions are watching whether the Maryland court will accept the administration’s reliance on diplomatic assurances or insist on a fuller record and a final administrative decision before allowing a transfer.
For Abrego Garcia, the immediate question is whether he will remain in Pennsylvania while the case proceeds or be moved to Liberia in the coming days. His attorneys say the record does not support sending him there before administrative and judicial review are complete, and they point to Costa Rica’s stated willingness to accept him as evidence that another lawful option exists. The government says Costa Rica’s position is not controlling and that it is entitled to choose a third country that will accept him, provided it meets legal standards and foreign policy considerations.
As lawyers traded filings late this week, one sentence captured the distance between the two sides. The DOJ’s brief asserted,
“The Constitution does not entitle Petitioner to process beyond what the political branches have chosen to afford.”
His attorneys replied:
“The Government insists that the unreasoned determination of a single immigration officer—who concluded that Abrego Garcia failed to establish that it is ‘more likely than not’ that he will be persecuted or tortured in Liberia—satisfies due process. It does not.”
In the middle stands Judge Xinis, whose earlier ruling about CECOT’s dangers and whose order to return him by April 7, 2025 set the contours of the fight now unfolding.
A decision on the government’s bid to dissolve the injunction would determine whether the Trump administration can move forward immediately with a removal to Liberia or must wait while the immigration courts review USCIS’s reasonable fear determination. Until then, Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains in custody, the legal record grows, and the question persists: after a botched deportation to El Salvador that the Supreme Court called “illegal,” can assurances from a different government overcome a prisoner’s sworn fear and the safeguards courts have put in place to test it?
This Article in a Nutshell
The DOJ asked a Maryland judge to dissolve a ban blocking the removal of Salvadoran Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, arguing diplomatic assurances and public-safety needs justify the transfer. Abrego Garcia, detained in Pennsylvania as of November 8, 2025, was previously deported to El Salvador in March 2025, held 26 days in CECOT, then returned to the U.S. His attorneys insist due process requires keeping the injunction until an immigration judge reviews USCIS’s negative reasonable-fear finding and until the government honors his statutory designation of Costa Rica.
