Holding and practical impact (as of Wednesday, December 31, 2025): In the ongoing federal litigation involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a federal judge’s order in the District of Maryland bars ICE from re-detaining him while the injunction remains in effect. ICE confirmed in a December 30, 2025 court filing that it does not plan to detain him again so long as the judge’s order stands, but intends to re-detain if the order is lifted.
Practically, the case spotlights a recurring issue: ICE detention authority is not unlimited when the government lacks a valid, executable removal pathway, especially where the person holds withholding of removal and the government’s third-country plans are speculative.
This case also serves as a cautionary template for similarly situated noncitizens: people with protection orders, uncertain final-order posture, and contested detention can sometimes obtain emergency federal-court relief—but only with fast, well-developed lawyering and a clean record of compliance.
What happened: key facts driving the court’s intervention
Publicly described filings and statements reflect the following sequence.
- Withholding protection in 2019. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national living in Maryland, reportedly received withholding of removal in 2019, which bars DHS from removing him to El Salvador based on a threat finding. Withholding is authorized by INA § 241(b)(3).
-
Removal to El Salvador in March 2025. Despite that protection, he was deported to El Salvador in March 2025. ICE later characterized the deportation as an “administrative error.” Litigation and public attention followed.
-
Return to the United States in June 2025. The government returned him to the United States after further court proceedings.
-
Criminal case and immigration re-detention. He was charged in Tennessee with human smuggling tied to a prior traffic stop and later re-detained by ICE in August 2025.
-
Judge Paula Xinis orders release and bars re-detention. On December 11, 2025, Judge Xinis ordered his release, concluding ICE lacked a lawful basis to hold him under the posture presented to the court. On December 12, 2025, she issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) prohibiting ICE from re-detaining him at a check-in.
-
ICE confirms its current plan. In a December 30, 2025 filing, ICE Assistant Director for Field Operations Liana J. Castano stated immigration officials do not plan to detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia again while the judge’s order remains in effect, but ICE would seek to act if the order is lifted.
Separately, DHS publicly criticized the ruling. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem also issued a public statement about his August 2025 arrest. Those statements reflect the political intensity around the case, but the operative constraint is the judge’s order.
The legal frame: when ICE may detain, and why removal feasibility matters
ICE typically relies on two detention frameworks:
- Pre-final-order detention under INA § 236 (8 U.S.C. § 1226), which covers many cases while removal proceedings are pending.
- Post-final-order detention under INA § 241 (8 U.S.C. § 1231), which applies after a final order of removal, during the “removal period,” and sometimes beyond.
The court’s reported focus was the basic question: what is the lawful basis to hold the person today? If the government cannot show a valid removal posture, detention becomes legally vulnerable.
Feasibility of removal is also central in prolonged-detention law. The Supreme Court’s leading case is Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), which held that indefinite post-order detention raises serious constitutional issues when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
Withholding of removal adds a second constraint. Withholding blocks removal to the feared country but does not erase the removal order. DHS may attempt removal to a third country if legally and practically available, but in practice third-country plans often collapse without proof of acceptance.
The BIA has recognized third-country removal authority as real but bounded by due process and statutory limits. For example, Matter of A-S-M-, 28 I&N Dec. 282 (BIA 2021) addresses third-country removal procedures and notice principles in the withholding context. The common thread across authorities is: ICE generally needs a lawful and workable plan, not a hypothetical one, especially when detention is the tool used to compel compliance.
Warning (detention posture can change fast): If ICE claims the federal order is lifted or narrowed, it may move quickly to re-detain. People in similar situations should coordinate safety planning with counsel before any check-in.
Why the judge’s order is legally significant
1) “No executable removal path” as a red flag for detention
Where a person has withholding of removal, ICE cannot remove them to the barred country. If ICE also lacks evidence of third-country acceptance, a judge may view detention as disconnected from its lawful purpose.
In Abrego Garcia’s case, the court reportedly rejected the government’s claimed third-country options—Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia—because the record lacked evidence of real agreements. That reasoning reflects a federal-court concern that detention should not become punitive when removal is not meaningfully progressing.
2) Procedural fairness and candor concerns
Judge Xinis reportedly found the government “affirmatively misled the tribunal” regarding deportation options. Allegations of misstatements can influence equitable relief like TROs and injunctions.
Even when the government ultimately prevails on the merits, credibility issues can shift the tempo of a case. Courts often demand specificity when liberty is at stake.
3) Emergency federal-court tools can matter in check-in scenarios
A key practical detail is that the December 12 TRO reportedly barred ICE from re-detaining him at a routine check-in. Many noncitizens with ICE supervision fear “check-in arrests.” This case shows a court may intervene when a check-in arrest would evade meaningful review of detention legality.
Deadline watch (TROs and appeals): TROs are short-lived by design. Parties often litigate quickly toward a preliminary injunction or seek emergency appellate review. Counsel should monitor local rules and timelines closely.
How this precedent may affect future cases—without overreading it
This is a federal district court order, not a published BIA precedent. Its direct binding effect is limited. Still, it can be persuasive in similar fact patterns and sends signals about what records courts expect.
Likely ripple effects:
- More rigorous proof for third-country removal. If DHS asserts a third-country option, litigants may demand documents showing a country’s acceptance, travel documents, and a concrete timeline.
- Sharper disputes about “final order” status. The court reportedly found ICE lacked a valid final-order basis as presented. This can hinge on reopening, prior relief, reinstatement, or procedural defects.
- Increased focus on conditions of release. Where courts hesitate to allow detention, they may still permit monitoring and reporting, especially if criminal charges are pending.
- Litigation framing around retaliation or vindictiveness. Abrego Garcia’s team reportedly seeks dismissal of criminal charges based on vindictive prosecution theories. Those claims are difficult but can influence public narrative and sometimes judicial skepticism in parallel proceedings.
Warning (criminal and immigration cases interact): Statements made in immigration filings can affect a criminal defense, and vice versa. A joint strategy between immigration counsel and criminal defense counsel is often essential.
Circuit splits or conflicting lines of authority to watch
Several detention questions vary by circuit, especially for prolonged detention and bond-hearing rights under INA § 236 and INA § 241. After Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281 (2018), many statutory arguments shifted toward constitutional “as-applied” claims, and circuits now apply different tests and timelines for when due process requires additional process.
Third-country removal disputes also differ by jurisdiction, particularly around notice, timing, and evidentiary showing required before removal or detention. Because Abrego Garcia’s matter arises in Maryland, Fourth Circuit law will be especially important on appeal.
Practical takeaways for noncitizens and practitioners
- Identify the detention statute early.
– Is DHS proceeding under INA § 236 or INA § 241? The legal and remedial standards differ.
- Document withholding and any limits on removal.
– Withholding under INA § 241(b)(3) blocks removal to the specific country. It does not automatically bar detention, but it narrows what DHS can realistically do.
- Force clarity on third-country plans.
– Request specifics: Which country? Proof of acceptance? Travel document status? Timeline?
- Treat ICE check-ins as legally sensitive events.
– If there is a credible risk of re-detention, counsel may consider emergency federal filings. Timing is often decisive.
- Do not ignore criminal exposure.
– Criminal allegations change custody decisions and discretionary factors and can create separate detention bases.
Abrego Garcia’s case shows how a judge’s order can temporarily prevent ICE from attempting to detain a person again, even when the government signals it would act immediately if allowed. But injunctions are fragile. Outcomes often turn on procedural posture, record quality, and circuit law.
Anyone in a similar situation should consult a qualified immigration attorney promptly and, if there is a criminal case, coordinate with criminal defense counsel.
Legal resources
- EOIR Immigration Court info: https://www.justice.gov/eoir
- USCIS forms and case information: https://www.uscis.gov
⚖️ Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.
Resources:
– AILA Lawyer Referral
Judge Paula Xinis of the District of Maryland issued an order preventing ICE from re-detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national with withholding of removal protection. The court found that the government failed to provide a lawful basis for detention or a credible third-country removal plan. The ruling highlights federal judicial oversight on ICE’s detention authority and addresses concerns regarding government candor in immigration litigation.
