A federal judge will hear arguments Monday about whether to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia to immigration custody after he was freed for less than two weeks. The case centers on his detention status following a mistaken deportation to El Salvador. Garcia has been in immigration detention since August, a period that has sparked debate over third-country removal. The upcoming hearing will determine if his release can be revoked.
Garcia’s deportation to El Salvador was an error that occurred in March, despite a 2019 immigration judge granting him protection from return to his home country. The judge found that Garcia faced danger from a gang that had targeted his family. Despite this protection, officials mistakenly deported him to El Salvador. The incident prompted scrutiny of the government’s removal plans.
Garcia lives in Maryland with his American wife and child. He immigrated illegally from El Salvador as a teenager. For years he has resided in the state, building a life and family. His case highlights the personal impact of immigration policy decisions.
In August, Garcia was placed in immigration detention by the Department of Homeland Security. The detention was meant to hold him pending removal proceedings. However, the government has not issued a formal removal order. This absence raises questions about the legality of his continued detention.
The U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on the broader issue of detention without a removal order. The Court clarified that immigration detention is civil, not criminal. It emphasized that detention must be non-punitive. This ruling frames the arguments presented by Garcia’s attorneys.
Government officials have announced plans to deport Garcia to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia. They have not pursued Costa Rica, a country Garcia has agreed to relocate to. The government has claimed Costa Rica is unwilling to accept him. This discrepancy has fueled accusations of misrepresentation.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, presiding over the case, has criticized the government’s approach. She accused the department of misleading her about Costa Rica’s willingness to accept Garcia. She also highlighted the government’s threats to send him to African countries that never agreed to take him. Judge Xinis stated that such actions undermine the purpose of timely third-country removal.
Judge Xinis wrote, “persistent refusal to acknowledge Costa Rica as a viable removal option, their threats to send Abrego Garcia to African countries that never agreed to take him, and their misrepresentation to the Court that Liberia is now the only country available to Abrego Garcia, all reflect that whatever purpose was behind his detention, it was not for the ‘basic purpose’ of timely third-country removal,”. This quote underscores her concerns about the government’s strategy. It also reflects her view that Garcia’s detention lacks a legitimate removal plan. Her statement will guide the court’s decision.
On Dec. 11, Judge Xinis issued an order releasing Garcia from immigration custody. The order also concluded that the immigration judge who heard his case in 2019 failed to issue a removal order. As a result, Garcia cannot be deported anywhere without a formal removal order. The Dec. 11 order thus created a legal vacuum regarding his status.
Government attorneys argue that they can still detain Garcia because immigration proceedings are ongoing. They maintain that without a final removal order, the proceedings continue. They also assert that pre-final order detention is permissible under current law. Their position is that Garcia remains subject to detention until a removal order is finalized.
Government attorneys wrote, “If there is no final order of removal, immigration proceedings are ongoing, and Petitioner is subject to pre-final order detention,”. This statement explains their legal reasoning. It also reflects the department’s view that detention is justified. The court will weigh this argument against Garcia’s claims.
Garcia’s attorneys counter that his detention is punitive rather than procedural. They argue that the government has no viable removal plan. They also contend that indefinite detention violates constitutional principles. Their case hinges on the distinction between civil and punitive detention.
Garcia’s attorneys wrote, “If immigration detention does not serve the legitimate purpose of effectuating reasonably foreseeable removal, it is punitive, potentially indefinite, and unconstitutional,”. This quote captures their central argument. It emphasizes that detention without a removal order should not be punitive. The attorneys seek to have the court declare the detention unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court’s earlier ruling clarified that immigration detention is civil, not criminal. The court emphasized that detention must be non-punitive. This distinction is critical to Garcia’s case. It informs both the government’s and the attorneys’ arguments.
Today, the judge will hear the arguments from both sides. The decision will determine whether Garcia can remain free or be returned to custody. The case also raises broader questions about the department’s removal practices. The outcome could set a precedent for similar cases.
Garcia’s situation illustrates the tension between individual rights and governmental removal policies. His case has become a lightning rod for both sides of the immigration debate. The court’s ruling will be closely watched by advocates and policymakers alike. It may influence future removal strategies.
If the judge rules in favor of the government, it could reinforce the department’s authority to detain individuals without a removal order. Conversely, a ruling in Garcia’s favor could prompt a review of detention practices. The case sits at the intersection of immigration law and constitutional rights. Its implications extend beyond Garcia’s personal circumstances.
Key stakeholders include Garcia, his family, the Department of Homeland Security, and the federal judiciary. Each party has a distinct interest in the outcome. The government seeks to enforce its removal agenda. Garcia and his supporters aim to protect his liberty.
Under U.S. immigration law, a formal removal order is required to deport an individual. Without such an order, pre-final order detention is permissible. The legal debate centers on whether this detention is justified. The court will interpret the relevant statutes and precedents.
The upcoming hearing will clarify the limits of detention without a removal order. It will also address the government’s claims of misrepresentation. The decision will have lasting effects on how immigration officials handle mistaken deportations. The case remains a pivotal moment in the ongoing discussion over immigration policy.
