Federal Judge Bars ICE From Re-Detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia After 90-Day Removal Period Expires

A federal judge in Maryland has ruled that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement cannot re-detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, finding that the government’s 90-day removal period has expired and that officials lack a realistic plan to deport him.

In an order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis concluded that the Department of Homeland Security failed to demonstrate “good reason to believe” Abrego Garcia’s deportation is likely within a reasonable time. Without a workable removal plan, the court determined, continued immigration detention would not comply with federal law.

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who has lived in Maryland for years, drew national attention after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador last year despite a prior immigration ruling that barred his return there. In 2019, an immigration judge ordered that he could not be removed to El Salvador after finding he faced threats from a gang that had targeted his family.

Following public scrutiny and a court directive, the administration of President Donald Trump returned him to the United States in June. His return came after federal prosecutors in Tennessee secured an indictment charging him with human smuggling. He has pleaded not guilty. That criminal case is proceeding separately from his immigration matter.

In court filings, the government stated that it intended to send him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, or Liberia. In Tuesday’s order, Judge Xinis wrote that those proposed removals lacked a concrete and workable path to completion. She also noted that Costa Rica has consistently offered to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee and that he has agreed to go there, but the government has not pursued that option. Based on that record, she concluded that deportation was not reasonably foreseeable and that the legal basis for continued detention had expired.

Under federal law, immigration authorities may detain someone after a final order of removal for a limited period to carry out deportation. The law generally provides a 90-day window to complete removal, and detention during that time is tied to the government’s ability to arrange travel and secure acceptance by a receiving country.

Supreme Court precedent places limits on that detention power when deportation is not likely to occur. In Zadvydas v. Davis, the Court held that once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention raises serious concerns under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The justices emphasized that immigration detention is civil, not criminal, and exists to facilitate removal, not to punish. The Court indicated that after six months, continued detention is generally not permitted unless deportation is likely in the near future.

Judge Xinis concluded that repeated statements about possible removals to several African nations did not establish that deportation was realistically achievable and that the legal basis for continued detention had expired.

Abrego Garcia’s attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, said that if federal officials were genuinely attempting to remove his client, they would have acted on Costa Rica’s offer.

The Department of Homeland Security sharply criticized the decision and maintained that Abrego Garcia cannot remain in the United States. In a statement, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said that if the matter were truly about law or due process, he would already be deported and would not have returned to the country.

The order does not grant Abrego Garcia lawful immigration status. Release typically means he remains under supervision while removal efforts or court proceedings continue. Nor does the ruling affect the separate criminal charges pending in Tennessee.

As of Tuesday’s order, ICE may not re-detain Abrego Garcia without evidence that deportation is reasonably foreseeable.