Washington — A federal judge in Tennessee dismissed an indictment against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen wrongly deported by the Trump administration, on charges of human smuggling. U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw sided with Abrego Garcia, asserting that the Justice Department’s prosecution appeared vindictive. Crenshaw had earlier found evidence suggesting vindictiveness in the prosecution, requiring the government to counter it. The judge concluded that prosecutors failed to provide adequate evidence, stating, “the evidence before this Court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power.”
Abrego Garcia expressed relief at the ruling, describing it as a significant step towards justice. His attorney, Sean Hecker, criticized the prosecution as politically motivated, emphasizing appreciation for the independent judiciary’s role in applying legal precedents fairly.
Abrego Garcia faced charges of human smuggling after a traffic stop in Tennessee in November 2022. He pleaded not guilty to the charges. After being deported to El Salvador in March 2025, Abrego Garcia was held in a supermax prison. However, an immigration judge had previously granted him a legal status preventing his deportation. A Trump administration official conceded the deportation was erroneous.
Following his removal, Abrego Garcia initiated a civil lawsuit in Maryland challenging the deportation. A judge ordered the Trump administration in April 2025 to facilitate his return to the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security delayed compliance but eventually brought him back to face criminal charges. Abrego Garcia has been navigating legal battles and was held by federal authorities in Tennessee and immigration officials in Maryland, although he has avoided immigration detention for months.
Judge’s Ruling
Judge Crenshaw emphasized the gravity of his conclusion, stating, “The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution.” He noted that only after Abrego Garcia vindicated his rights did the government resume investigation into his case.
The Justice Department disagreed with the ruling, labeling it as politically motivated and announced plans to appeal.
Abrego Garcia’s legal team argued that the prosecution was retaliatory, stemming from his lawsuit against the deportation. During a hearing, defense lawyers probed government witnesses about the timing and motivation behind the indictment, questioning any involvement of the White House or federal departments.
Robert McGuire, who led the prosecution, maintained that evidence supported the indictment, insisting the decision was made independently without directive. However, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys provided emails indicating significant interest from Justice Department officials in charging him post-deportation challenges.
Crenshaw noted “insufficient evidence of actual vindictiveness,” but affirmed the government’s failure to counter the presumption of vindictiveness due to internal communications suggesting prosecutorial priority.
He observed that motivations for Abrego Garcia’s indictment changed following his successful court challenge, indicating “retaliatory taint” in the renewed investigation. Crenshaw found evidence suggesting “but for Abrego’s lawsuit,” the indictment might not have occurred.
Crenshaw linked Justice Department officials, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and Aakash Singh, to reopening investigations following Abrego Garcia’s deportation challenge. Blanche is now acting attorney general. The judge emphasized Singh’s involvement in key decision-making roles, demonstrating Main Justice’s direct involvement prior to McGuire’s actions.
Despite McGuire’s belief in his decision-making autonomy, Crenshaw underscored the hierarchical oversight involving Singh, Blanche, and former Attorney General Pam Bondi.