A federal judge on Sunday rejected the Justice Department’s bid to detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia pending his federal criminal trial in Tennessee, citing the importance of due process while noting that he could still separately be held by immigration authorities.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes began her 51-page ruling by observing that the only thing the government and Abrego Garcia might agree on is the likelihood that he will stay in custody regardless of her detention ruling, given the government’s intention to separately detain him in U.S. immigration custody. While that could make her ruling an “academic exercise,” Holmes stressed that she needed to give the defendant “the due process that he is guaranteed.”
A judge saying that she is going to enforce the Constitution might have been an obvious statement hardly worth writing before President Donald Trump’s second inauguration. But today it calls to mind the administration’s failure to provide that baseline guarantee in multiple cases, perhaps none more infamous than Abrego Garcia’s.
So, regardless of the outcome of this criminal case and any subsequent deportation efforts by the government, it’s remarkable that merely mentioning the necessity of due process stands as a rebuke against the administration that fought to avoid providing it in this case and is still fighting to avoid providing it in others.
The Trump Justice Department brought the criminal case after illegally removing Abrego Garcia to El Salvador in March, where he was imprisoned without having even been charged with any crime. The administration resisted court orders to facilitate his return and then brought him back in early June to face federal criminal charges of allegedly illegally transporting undocumented immigrants. He pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers have continued to pursue sanctions against the government in the separate case in Maryland in which a judge had ordered his return in April.
Arguing for pretrial detention, federal prosecutors said Abrego Garcia “poses a danger to the community and a serious risk of flight.” Opposing detention, his lawyers said the government “points to zero facts” backing its stark claims. A high-ranking Tennessee prosecutor resigned reportedly due to “concerns that the case was being pursued for political reasons.”
In her ruling on Sunday, Holmes said the government failed to make its case that Abrego Garcia is enough of a flight risk or danger to the community to warrant holding him ahead of trial. She said that she would set a hearing for Wednesday to review the conditions of his release.
But the DOJ quickly filed a motion to a U.S. District Court judge in Tennessee on Sunday, arguing that Holmes’ impending release order should be halted. The motion notes that Abrego Garcia “has an immigration detainer lodged against him by the Department of Homeland Security,” adding that “he will remain in custody pending deportation and Judge Holmes’ release order would not immediately release him to the community under any circumstance.”
The success of that government motion and any further appeal on the detention issue in the coming days could derail Abrego Garcia’s release in the criminal case, regardless of any separate immigration detention.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
