On August 25, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued a temporary order barring the Trump administration from deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran immigrant, to Uganda, declaring that the administration is “absolutely forbidden” from removing him from the United States for now.
This ruling, delivered in a Maryland federal court, marks the latest chapter in a high-profile legal saga that has drawn national attention to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies and raised questions about due process and constitutional rights. Despite a Supreme Court precedent allowing unilateral deportations of undocumented immigrants under certain conditions, Abrego Garcia’s case highlights the complex interplay of legal protections, judicial oversight, and allegations of vindictive prosecution.
Background of the Case
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a 30-year-old sheet metal worker from Maryland, has lived in the U.S. for over a decade with his American wife and children. He entered the country illegally as a teenager to escape gang violence in El Salvador. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him “withholding of removal,” prohibiting his deportation to El Salvador due to a credible fear of persecution by gangs.
However, in March 2025, the Trump administration deported him to a notorious Salvadoran prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), in violation of this court order. The deportation was later admitted to be an “administrative error,” prompting widespread criticism and a Supreme Court order in April to “facilitate” his return to the U.S.
Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. in June 2025, only to face federal charges in Tennessee for human smuggling, stemming from a 2022 traffic stop where he was driving several undocumented individuals. He pleaded not guilty, and his legal team argued the charges were retaliatory, intended to punish him for challenging his wrongful deportation.
On August 22, 2025, a Tennessee judge released him from custody pending trial, determining he was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. However, just three days later, on August 25, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detained him during a mandatory check-in in Baltimore, signaling plans to deport him to Uganda—a country with which he has no known connection.
Judge Xinis’ Ruling and Rationale
Judge Xinis, an Obama appointee, intervened swiftly after Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed a habeas corpus petition on August 25, challenging his detention and potential deportation to Uganda. The judge’s order relies on a standing Maryland federal court rule that automatically pauses deportations for 48 business hours after such petitions are filed, allowing immigrants to contest their removal.
Xinis emphasized that Abrego Garcia must remain in the U.S. until she can hold a hearing to evaluate whether his due process rights are being violated, particularly given his expressed fear of persecution or torture in Uganda. She also raised concerns that deporting him to Uganda could be an “end run” around the 2019 court order barring his removal to El Salvador, as Uganda has not guaranteed it would not send him back to his home country.
Xinis further criticized the Trump administration’s tactics, noting that it appeared to be conditioning Abrego Garcia’s constitutional right to a fair trial on his acceptance of a plea deal. The administration had offered to deport him to Costa Rica—where he could live freely with refugee status—if he pleaded guilty to the smuggling charges. If he refused, they threatened deportation to Uganda.
“You can’t condition the relinquishment of constitutional rights in that regard,” Xinis stated, calling such tactics unconstitutional. This sentiment was echoed by Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, who accused the administration of “weaponizing the immigration system” to coerce a guilty plea.
Supreme Court Precedent and Its Limits
The Trump administration’s push to deport Abrego Garcia aligns with a broader interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling that grants the executive branch significant authority to unilaterally deport undocumented immigrants. In cases like Trump v. Hawaii (2018) and Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (2020), the Court has upheld the government’s discretion to deport individuals without extensive judicial review, particularly when national security or public safety is invoked. The administration has labeled Abrego Garcia a danger, alleging ties to the MS-13 gang—claims his legal team and multiple courts have dismissed as unsubstantiated.
However, Abrego Garcia’s case tests the limits of this precedent. The Supreme Court’s April 2025 order to facilitate his return from El Salvador implicitly acknowledged the illegality of his initial deportation, given the 2019 court order. Moreover, federal law and international obligations, such as the Convention Against Torture, require the U.S. to ensure deportees are not sent to countries where they face persecution or torture.
Garcia’s notice of fear regarding Uganda triggers his right to a “reasonable fear interview,” a process that must be completed before deportation. Judge Xinis’ ruling underscores that this due process requirement takes precedence over unilateral executive action in this instance.
Implications and Next Steps
The temporary block on Abrego Garcia’s deportation has galvanized supporters, including Maryland Senator Chris Van Hollen and Governor Wes Moore, who have called for due process and criticized the administration’s tactics as retaliatory. Immigrant rights advocates, such as the Tennessee Immigration and Refugee Rights Coalition, view the case as emblematic of broader abuses in Trump’s immigration policies. Meanwhile, the administration, led by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, continues to assert that Abrego Garcia is a threat, justifying their push for his removal.
Judge Xinis is expected to hold a hearing in the coming days to further evaluate Abrego Garcia’s claims, including his preference for deportation to Costa Rica, which has offered him refugee status. The outcome could set a precedent for how courts balance executive deportation powers with individual due process rights, especially in cases involving third-country deportations. For now, Abrego Garcia remains in an ICE facility in Virginia, his fate hanging in the balance as the legal battle unfolds.