Magistrate judge rejects Trump admin bid to jail Kilmar Abrego Garcia ahead of trial
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Salvadoran man whose illegal deportation became a high-profile symbol of President Donald Trump's aggressive immigration-enforcement policies, may not be held in jail pending trial on immigrant smuggling charges he was abruptly returned to the U.S. to face earlier this month, a federal magistrate judge ruled Sunday.
Despite the decision by Nashville-based U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes, Abrego is unlikely to be released anytime soon. The Justice Department immediately filed an appeal and there is an order to keep him in immigration custody, at least in the near term.
Still, the ruling is a blow to the nascent criminal case, which alleges Abrego regularly drove undocumented immigrants across the U.S. for years as part of an international human smuggling ring.
Holmes said prosecutors failed to produce enough plausible evidence that Abrego posed a danger to the community, was likely to flee or that he victimized minors while he allegedly transported immigrants across the country. And she repeatedly described the evidence presented by prosecutors as strained, unreliable and contradictory.
While Trump has insisted that Abrego is a member of the violent MS-13 gang, Holmes said the proof prosecutors presented of his gang ties during a daylong court hearing in Nashville earlier this month didn't amount to much.
'Given the volume of resources committed to the government's investigation of Abrego since April 2025…the Court supposes that if timely, more specific, concrete evidence exists of Abrego's alleged MS-13 gang membership or a consistent pattern of intentional conduct designed to threaten or intimidate specific individuals, the government would have offered that evidence,' the judge wrote.
Holmes also noted that, while MS-13 has been tied by the government to violent crimes and a variety of other offenses, 'Abrego has no reported criminal history of any kind.'
In fact, Holmes said the contention that Abrego was in the gang at all was built on 'double hearsay' that was at times inconsistent.
Holmes repeatedly noted that the government's case for detaining Abrego pending trial was built upon multiple layers of hearsay that sometimes 'defy common sense' and were often drawn from statements of cooperating witnesses with extensive criminal history who are seeking favors from federal prosecutors.
Prosecutors said Abrego might flee because he could effectively receive a life sentence, based on the possibility of up to 10 years in prison for each immigrant he transported. But the judge said the prosecution's calculation was wrong, and she observed that past sentences for charges similar to Abrego's were not nearly that steep, averaging around 12 months.
'The Court is unconvinced that the potential sentence Abrego faces if convicted as charged is so extraordinary as to compel finding that this case involves a serious risk of flight,' Holmes wrote.
Prosecutors also sought Abrego's pretrial detention based on claims that his alleged crimes involved minors. A Homeland Security Investigation agent testified that 'cooperators' said Abrego drove an SUV-loaded with undocumented immigrants from Houston to Maryland sometimes as often as three to four times a week with his own children in the vehicle, but Holmes said the accounts did not seem plausible.
'The sheer number of hours that would be required to maintain this schedule, which would consistently be more than 120 hours per week of driving time, approach physical impossibility,' the judge wrote.
A Justice Department spokesperson had no immediate comment. But federal prosecutors quickly appealed Holmes' ruling to U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, the Obama-appointed trial judge ultimately slated to preside over the case.
The ruling is the latest twist in a saga that has resulted in multiple black eyes for Trump's mass deportation policy, including a rebuke from the Supreme Court and a slew of federal judges who found Abrego was denied due process when he was summarily deported to his native country in March.
Abrego was among hundreds of immigrants abruptly arrested and delivered to El Salvador on three flights that also included people targeted by Trump under an unprecedented invocation of wartime deportation powers. Though Abrego wasn't among that group, the administration labeled him as an MS-13 member and said he was not entitled to much, if any, due process as a result of Trump's determination.
However, at the time of his deportation, Abrego was subject to a 2019 immigration court order barring his deportation to El Salvador, where a judge concluded Abrego was likely to face persecution and violence. The administration acknowledged the error in response to a lawsuit filed by Abrego and his family, but for weeks the administration resisted court orders demanding officials attempt to secure his release from Salvadoran custody and return to the United States.
While Abrego was still in a Salvadoran jail last month, U.S. prosecutors obtained a grand jury indictment of him in connection with a 2022 traffic stop on Interstate 40 in Tennessee. Prosecutors say Abrego was driving an SUV with nine undocumented immigrants in it, and that he regularly ferried immigrants between Texas and Maryland for $1000 to $1500 a trip as part of an international ring that helped people cross into the U.S. illegally.
Abrego's defense lawyers contend the criminal charges amount to retaliation for the attention his case drew to the Trump administration's hastily executed deportation of hundreds of men to a notorious, anti-terrorism prison in El Salvador in March.
Prosecutors insist that Abrego will remain in immigration custody even if he's released to await trial on the criminal charges. However, if that were the case, he could seek bond from an immigration judge.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Will Iran again sip the ‘poison' of a forced peace, or escalate?
At 86, with much of his life's work in ruins around him, he may prefer martyrdom to the surrender that President Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel are demanding of him. Advertisement Iran's first response was defiant. 'The Islamic Republic of Iran is resolved to defend Iran's territory, sovereignty, security and people by all force and means against the United States' criminal aggression,' the foreign ministry said in a statement. Iran has launched a serious barrage of missiles on Israel. It may, as it has warned, attack some of the 40,000 US soldiers in the region. What will be crucial is whether Iran's retaliation is prolonged. If it does enough to convince the Iranian people that it has not capitulated, Khamenei may then decide to enter talks with the United States about a settlement of the war. After all, in January 2020, when Trump ordered the assassination of a key Iranian figure in his first term, General Qassem Soleimani, with a drone strike in Iraq, Iran responded with a punishing wave of missile attacks against US troops in Iraq. It then stopped, fearing a wider war that could threaten the regime. Advertisement Iran has a variety of responses if it chooses, that show both resistance and restraint, said Sanam Vakil, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, a London-based think tank. Khamenei could approve leaving the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and expelling the nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency who have been monitoring Iran's nuclear facilities. He could target those US bases in the region that have largely been evacuated and activate the Houthis in Yemen to resume their attacks on American ships in the Red Sea. 'This would be actually a cautious mix of options designed to show that Iran has the ability and the daring to stand up to Trump, but is still trying to avoid full-scale regional escalation,' Vakil said. 'If Khamenei sidesteps strikes on the US, this lays the pathway for diplomacy and will signal to Trump his intention to de-escalate,' she said. Trump, too, by warning Iran of the strikes in advance and limiting them, at least so far, to the three main Iranian nuclear sites, also showed restraint, she said. The US attacks, for instance, spared political targets and military bases. But Khamenei hardly trusts Trump after he unilaterally pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal that Iran agreed to with the Obama administration and other governments in 2018. Even if there were a new pact agreed upon now, Vakil asked, 'could he trust Trump to provide sanctions relief and ensure Israel is on board?' Iran could do much more, of course. It could try to close the Strait of Hormuz to shipping, a move that could drive up oil prices by blocking oil tankers from leaving or entering the Persian Gulf. It could attack the energy infrastructure of Gulf states, as it did in 2019. It has a sophisticated cyberwarfare program that it could activate. And it could work with Al Qaeda to hit Israeli and US interests in the region and abroad, from bases to embassies. Advertisement Iran will do more, and aggressively, said Ellie Geranmayeh, an Iran specialist at the European Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank. 'Iran knew this was coming and will have prepared a chain of responses,' she said, with an immediate escalation of attacks against Israel. But Trump's efforts to draw a line now will fail, she said. Attacks against the United States 'are now inevitable and will be swift and multilayered,' Geranmayeh said. 'Iran knows it cannot win this war — but wants to ensure that the US and Israel also lose.' A lot will depend on the assessment of the damage done, which is still unclear. It is also unclear where Iran's large stock of highly enriched uranium is. Iran has enough to make up to 10 nuclear warheads with a bit more enrichment, according to the US military. Many analysts assume that Iran has dispersed it, perhaps where IAEA inspectors cannot access it. The IAEA said Sunday that there had been no indication of radioactive leakage, which would be the case if the uranium stockpiles had been hit, said Vali Nasr, a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and author of 'Iran's Grand Strategy: A Political History.' That is one reason the United States and Europe should do all they can to keep Iran in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and the IAEA, he said, so the world does not lose its eyes and ears on Iran's nuclear program. Advertisement For Nasr, the conflict is just beginning, not ending. For Iran, he said, 'it will be live to fight again.' There is 'no one grand gesture after which everything will change,' he added. Most important, he said, 'the larger lesson for Iran is that it needs serious deterrence, and a bomb is the only one that will work.' Iran's missiles and proxies did not protect it, Nasr said. Even if Khamenei dies, the country has been shown to be vulnerable, he said, and nuclear deterrence is the most likely response. Geranmayeh agrees. 'This is the great irony,' she said. 'Although Trump has sought to eliminate the nuclear threat from Iran, he has now made it far more likely that Iran becomes a nuclear state.' And that could mean a future of continued bombing campaigns and Iranian counterstrikes, she said. Still, Geranmayeh believes that diplomacy is the best way out for all parties. After a week of violence in the region, she said, 'there could be a window for Tehran and Washington to come to their senses.' Matthew Kroenig of the Atlantic Council, a think tank, is skeptical. With so much damage to their expensive nuclear program, he said in an email, 'they probably won't rebuild.' Iran has 'spent billions of dollars and decades only to invite sanctions and a devastating war with the most powerful country in the world. Why hit replay on that tape?' Advertisement If Iran does rebuild, he said, the United States 'can hit them again.' This article originally appeared in
New York Times
2 hours ago
- New York Times
Judge Orders Salvadoran Man Released on Smuggling Charges
In a sharp rebuke to the Justice Department, a federal judge said on Sunday that Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia should be freed from criminal custody as he awaits trial on smuggling charges after his wrongful deportation to El Salvador and return to the United States. In a scathing order, the judge, Barbara D. Holmes, ruled that Mr. Abrego Garcia was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. The decision undermined repeated claims by President Trump and some of his top aides who have described the Salvadoran immigrant as a violent gang member, even a terrorist. But the decision by Judge Holmes, filed in Federal District Court in Nashville, was likely to be a short-lived victory for Mr. Abrego Garcia and his defense team. The judge acknowledged that he would probably remain in the custody of immigration officials, as his charges of smuggling undocumented immigrants across the United States moved through the courts. Judge Holmes's ruling was the first judicial evaluation of the charges filed against Mr. Abrego Garcia since he was suddenly brought back to U.S. soil last month after prosecutors indicted him in Nashville. The decision to get him out of Salvadoran custody came as the Justice Department was under mounting pressure in a separate civil case. The judge in that case has threatened to hold administration officials in contempt for their serial evasions and delays in complying with her order to free him from El Salvador. Federal prosecutors immediately asked Judge Holmes to put the decision to free Mr. Abrego Garcia on hold, even as his lawyers hailed it. 'We are pleased by the court's thoughtful analysis and its express recognition that Mr. Abrego Garcia is entitled both to due process and the presumption of innocence, both of which our government has worked quite hard to deny him,' Sean Hecker, one of the defense lawyers, said. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
2 hours ago
FBI, DHS host call with governors over US threat environment after Iran strikes
Senior FBI and Homeland Security officials hosted conference calls with some of the nation's governors and top law enforcement officials on Sunday to discuss how the U.S. missile strikes in Iran impact an already dangerous threat environment, sources told ABC News. The calls included one with hundreds of state and local law enforcement officials from around the country and another with state governors and their staff. An FBI official said on the call that the agency's "posture is going to be enhanced" after the U.S. military action against Iran. The FBI is asking more personnel to be in the office, and continuing to "canvas sources" and monitor intelligence. Sources said there is currently no specific intelligence of a direct, credible threat against the U.S. homeland. The call with governors was meant to ensure that states are aware of the current threat environment and to encourage them to reach out to relevant state agencies, infrastructure partners and others who may be at risk, sources said. Federal officials specifically urged governors and their staff on the call to be vigilant for an uptick in cyber activity within their states and encouraged them to reach out to relevant state agencies, private sector infrastructure partners, and others who may be at risk, including Jewish institutions or groups associated with Israel. The call with law enforcement also included a representative from the Secure Community Network (SCN), a Chicago-based organization that helps protect Jewish institutions across the country and shares intelligence with the FBI and DHS. SCN's national director and CEO, Michael Masters, said on the call that the decision by the U.S. government to join Israel's military campaign against Iran "opens up a new chapter for all of us," and that Jewish institutions and Jewish leaders within the U.S. "should be considered at an elevated risk" for retaliatory violence. He said that in the hours right after the U.S. launched its strikes, SCN identified more than 1,600 "violent posts directed to the Jewish community on social media." A number that he said continues to grow. Expressing concern over what Iran might do in response to the U.S. military action, Masters said, "Historically, as many of us know, the intelligence community has determined that Iran would not strike in the U.S. unless a red line was crossed. …The so-called red line of the Iranian response doctrine was crossed." And Jim Dunlap, the deputy secretary for analysis at the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis, said the U.S. strike against Iran "raises the threat environment here in the United States." But he also said that, "from a terrorism perspective, we assess that Tehran's retaliatory efforts against the homeland are probably dependent upon the extent to which it believes U.S. actions threaten the regime's stability." "We have not yet observed the Iranians call for direct violence in the homeland," he added, though he said DHS is "closely" monitoring for "specific calls to violence and threats against the homeland." Without offering specifics, Dunlap said that "recent law enforcement disruptions" in the U.S. "could challenge Iran's ability to execute a plot in the homeland in the immediate term." The calls come after Homeland Security issued a bulletin calling on the public to report anything suspicious to officials with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem stating flatly that what's happening in Iran brings the potential for increased threats to the homeland in the form of "possible cyberattacks, acts of violence and antisemitic hate crimes." All state governors were invited to the call, but not all were able to make it for various reasons, so for some only their staff members attended, sources said.
