Federal Judge Orders ICE to Immediately Release Kilmar Abrego Garcia, What It Means for Immigration Detention
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ruled Thursday that ICE has been holding Kilmar Abrego Garcia “without lawful authority” and granted his habeas petition for immediate release from detention. The 31-page order finds no valid removal order exists to justify his continued custody.
What Happened in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia Case?
Judge Paula Xinis ordered Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s immediate release from the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Pennsylvania on December 11, 2025. The judge found there was no final order of removal from the government to deport Abrego Garcia from the United States, despite months of detention.
Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported to El Salvador’s CECOT megaprison in March 2025, violating a 2019 immigration court order that protected him from deportation to his home country due to credible gang threats. The Trump administration admitted the deportation was an “administrative error”. The Supreme Court ordered his return to the U.S. in April, and he was brought back in June.
Upon his return, he was immediately hit with human smuggling charges in Tennessee based on a 2022 traffic stop. After being released by a Tennessee judge pending trial, he was again detained by immigration authorities in August when he reported to an ICE office in Baltimore.
Why Did the Judge Order Immediate Release from ICE Custody?
Judge Xinis identified multiple legal violations justifying immediate release:
No Final Removal Order “Because respondents have no statutory authority to remove Abrego Garcia to a third country absent a removal order, his removal cannot be considered reasonably foreseeable, imminent, or consistent with due process”, the judge wrote.
Detention Without Lawful Authority “Since Abrego Garcia’s return from wrongful detention in El Salvador, he has been re-detained, again without lawful authority”, Judge Xinis found.
Government Misconduct The judge wrote that federal authorities “did not just stonewall” the court, “They affirmatively misled the tribunal” about deportation options.
Legal Grounds for the Court’s Release Order
The ruling rests on established immigration detention law:
Habeas Corpus Relief The 31-page order granting Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition detailed his removal to El Salvador, return to the U.S., and re-detention. Habeas corpus allows federal courts to review whether immigration detention is lawful.
Zadvydas Principle Xinis cited Supreme Court precedent under Zadvydas v. Davis, which bars the government from indefinitely detaining migrants after removal issues have been ordered. When removal is not reasonably foreseeable, detention becomes unlawful.
Due Process Violations “Because Abrego Garcia has been held in ICE detention to effectuate third-country removal absent a lawful removal order, his requested relief is proper”, the judge determined.
What the Court Found About ICE’s Actions
Judge Xinis documented a pattern of problematic conduct:
Serial Deportation Notices “Respondents serially ‘notified’ Abrego Garcia — while he sat in ICE custody — of his expulsion to Uganda, then Eswatini, then Ghana; but none of these countries were ever viable options”, the judge wrote.
False Claims About Costa Rica Xinis found the government misled the court by claiming Costa Rica had rescinded its offer to accept Abrego Garcia. “Within 24 hours, Costa Rica, through Minister Zamora Cordero, communicated to multiple news sources that its offer to grant Abrego Garcia residence and refugee status is, and always has been, firm, unwavering, and unconditional”.
Detention Purpose Questioned “Respondents’ conduct over the past months belie that his detention has been for the basic purpose of effectuating removal, lending further support that Abrego Garcia should be held no longer”.
Constitutional Issues in ICE Detention
The case raises fundamental constitutional questions about immigration enforcement:
Due Process Rights The court found Abrego Garcia’s detention violated due process because no valid removal order existed. Federal courts can intervene when ICE holds someone without legal authority.
Limits on Executive Power The ruling demonstrates judicial oversight of immigration enforcement. Courts can order release when detention serves no legitimate removal purpose.
Protection from Unlawful Detention Even non-citizens in removal proceedings have constitutional protections against arbitrary detention. The government must have legal authority to continue holding someone.
Current Status Following the Release Order
Judge Xinis directed the government to notify Abrego Garcia of the exact time and location of his release and to notify the court no later than 5 p.m. on December 11, 2025.
Release Conditions Abrego Garcia is still under strict pre-trial release conditions imposed on him by the federal judge overseeing his human smuggling criminal case. Those conditions include being under the custody of his brother in Maryland and not being able to travel outside that state without permission.
Government Response Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said “This is naked judicial activism by an Obama appointed judge. This order lacks any valid legal basis and we will continue to fight this tooth and nail in the courts”. The government is expected to appeal.
Criminal Case Pending Abrego Garcia is facing criminal charges in federal court in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. He has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the prosecution is vindictive. A judge has ordered an evidentiary hearing after finding some evidence that the prosecution against Abrego Garcia “may be vindictive”.
What This Means for Immigration Detention Practices
The ruling establishes important principles for ICE detention:
Removal Must Be Reasonably Foreseeable ICE cannot indefinitely detain someone when removal to any country is uncertain or impossible. Courts will scrutinize whether detention serves a legitimate removal purpose.
Final Removal Orders Required Without a final order of removal, ICE’s statutory authority to detain someone for deportation purposes is questionable. Courts can order release when this legal foundation is absent.
Judicial Review Available Detained immigrants can challenge their custody through habeas corpus petitions in federal court. Judges have authority to order release when detention violates constitutional or statutory requirements.
Government Accountability Courts will not tolerate government misrepresentations about deportation plans or country agreements. Misleading the court can result in immediate release orders.
Legal Remedies for Detained Immigrants
Abrego Garcia’s case demonstrates available legal options:
Habeas Corpus Petitions Federal courts can review whether ICE has legal authority to continue detaining someone. If no valid removal order exists or removal is not foreseeable, courts can order release.
Bond Hearings Detained immigrants can request bond hearings to challenge continued custody, especially when removal is not imminent.
Motions to Reopen Immigration court proceedings can be reopened to challenge removal orders or seek new relief like asylum.
Protection from Wrongful Deportation Courts can issue orders preventing deportation to specific countries where someone faces persecution or danger.
How to Challenge Unlawful ICE Detention
Steps for detained immigrants and their families:
- Consult an Immigration Attorney Immediately Time is critical in detention cases. Experienced counsel can evaluate whether habeas relief is appropriate.
- Document All ICE Communications Keep records of all notices about potential deportation countries, detention reasons, and any changing explanations for custody.
- File Habeas Petition in Federal Court If removal is not imminent or no final order exists, a habeas petition can challenge detention legality.
- Request Bond Hearing Even with a removal order, prolonged detention without imminent removal may warrant bond consideration.
- Preserve All Court Orders Any prior immigration court orders protecting someone from deportation must be documented and presented.
Precedent for Other Detained Immigrants
This ruling has broader implications:
Third-Country Removal Policies Scrutinized The Trump administration’s attempts to deport immigrants to countries where they have no ties face legal challenges when no final removal order exists.
Indefinite Detention Prohibited The Zadvydas principle applies broadly—ICE cannot hold someone indefinitely when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.
Court Oversight Strengthened Federal judges retain authority to intervene in immigration detention, especially when government conduct raises due process concerns.
What This Case Reveals About ICE Detention Authority
The Abrego Garcia case exposes limitations on ICE’s detention powers:
Statutory Authority Has Limits ICE cannot detain someone simply because they want to remove them. A valid legal basis—like a final removal order—is required.
Courts Check Executive Power Even in immigration enforcement, federal courts can review whether detention complies with constitutional requirements.
Due Process Applies Non-citizens facing deportation retain constitutional protections. Detention without legal authority violates due process.
Key Takeaways for US Stakeholders
For Detained Immigrants:
- You have the right to challenge your detention in federal court
- If no final removal order exists, prolonged detention may be unlawful
- Habeas corpus petitions can result in immediate release orders
- Document all government communications about potential deportations
For Immigration Attorneys:
- File habeas petitions when clients face prolonged detention without valid removal orders
- Challenge detention when removal is not reasonably foreseeable
- Courts have authority to order immediate release in appropriate cases
- Government misrepresentations strengthen habeas claims
For Advocates and Civil Rights Organizations:
- This case demonstrates successful judicial oversight of immigration detention
- Courts will intervene when ICE exceeds its statutory authority
- Third-country removal policies face legal scrutiny
- Constitutional protections apply even to non-citizens in removal proceedings
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is a habeas corpus petition in immigration cases?
A habeas corpus petition asks a federal court to review whether ICE has legal authority to continue detaining someone. If the court finds detention violates constitutional or statutory requirements, it can order immediate release.
Q: Can ICE detain someone indefinitely while trying to find a country to deport them to?
No. Under the Supreme Court’s Zadvydas decision, ICE cannot indefinitely detain someone when removal is not reasonably foreseeable. Courts can order release when deportation remains uncertain.
Q: Does a final removal order need to exist for ICE to hold someone?
While ICE has some detention authority during removal proceedings, prolonged detention to effectuate removal to a third country without a final removal order raises serious legal questions, as this case demonstrates.
Q: What happens if the government appeals Judge Xinis’s order?
The government is expected to appeal to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. However, unless that court stays the release order, Abrego Garcia must be released immediately per the district court’s ruling.
Q: Can other detained immigrants use this case to challenge their detention?
Yes. While each case depends on specific facts, the legal principles apply broadly. Immigrants detained without valid removal orders or when deportation is not imminent may have grounds for habeas relief.
Q: What are the release conditions for Abrego Garcia?
He will be released to his brother’s custody in Maryland with electronic monitoring. He cannot travel outside Maryland without court permission due to his pending criminal case in Tennessee.
Q: Does this ruling prevent the government from eventually deporting Abrego Garcia
No. The ruling addresses unlawful detention, not deportation authority. However, the 2019 immigration court order still protects him from deportation to El Salvador. Any removal would require a valid final order and must be to a country that agrees to accept him.
Important Resources:
- USCIS Immigration Court Information: https://www.uscis.gov/
- ICE Detention Locator: https://www.ice.gov/detain/ice-ero-detention-facilities
- American Immigration Lawyers Association: https://www.aila.org/
- American Immigration Council: https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/
- National Immigration Law Center: https://www.nilc.org/
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Detained immigrants should consult with qualified immigration attorneys about their specific situations.
About the Author
Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah