In a significant turn of events, a Maryland federal judge has ordered the immediate release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from ICE custody, criticizing the Trump administration for detaining him unlawfully. The judge highlighted the misleading information given to the court regarding Costa Rica’s readiness to accept him as a refugee and pointed out that no valid order for his deportation from the U.S. existed.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who presided over the case, approved Abrego Garcia’s petition for release. However, he will still face conditions related to a separate criminal human smuggling case in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia contends that these charges were brought against him out of spite, as his civil case has caused embarrassment for the U.S. government.

In her 31-page opinion, Xinis, appointed by former President Barack Obama, stated that the core issue was determining if there was a legitimate removal order under the Immigration and Nationality Act that justified his deportation to a third country, where he holds no citizenship.

Judge Xinis concluded that no such removal order existed for Abrego Garcia. She criticized federal officials, including DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, for failing to produce an order of removal, which was central to Abrego Garcia’s legal arguments.

The government had suggested deporting Abrego Garcia to several African nations, such as Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, or Liberia. This was despite his previous wrongful deportation to a notorious El Salvador prison earlier this year and subsequent return to the U.S. to face criminal charges. Abrego Garcia had expressed a willingness to self-deport to Costa Rica, which had agreed to accept him as a refugee.

A substantial portion of Judge Xinis’ ruling highlighted the Trump administration’s refusal to deport Abrego Garcia to Costa Rica despite the country’s expressed willingness to accept him, underscoring the contentious handling of his case.

The judge began by pointing out that, during an Oct. 10 evidentiary hearing, Deputy Assistant Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations John Schultz — “[c]ontrary to the Court’s order” — was “not prepared at all to discuss Costa Rica’s offer to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee.”

And yet, in November, the Trump administration “[o]ddly” filed court documents under seal claiming that Costa Rica had reversed course on this stance, in a declaration from ICE Acting Assistant Director for the Removal Division Johnathan Cantú.

Once Cantú was put on the witness stand on Nov. 20, the judge said, “it became evident that once again, Respondents defied this Court’s orders.”

“They simply refused to prepare and produce a witness with knowledge to testify in any meaningful way,” the judge said. “Cantú candidly admitted, for example, that he had no prior involvement in Abrego Garcia’s case and spent approximately five minutes preparing to testify.”

“Then at the hearing, Respondents showcased Cantú’s ignorance about the content of his Declaration pertaining to Costa Rica. As the pointed questions of Respondents’ counsel made clear, Cantú’s lack of knowledge was planned and purposeful,” Xinis added.

Just one day after Cantú’s testimony, Costa Rica’s Minister of Public Security Mario Zamora Cordero confirmed to the Washington Post that there was no 180 — and the judge took note.

“Ultimately, Respondents’ calculated effort to take Costa Rica ‘off the table’ backfired,” Xinis summarized. “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.”

The judge interpreted this series of events as no mere stonewall, but the government “affirmatively” misleading the court through “misrepresentation,” crediting the plaintiff’s claims that the Trump administration lied about Costa Rica as a removal option to instead try to send him to Liberia.

“This time, when the Court sought information about Liberia and Costa Rica so to fairly assess the validity of Abrego Garcia’s claims, Respondents did not just stonewall. They affirmatively misled the tribunal. They announced that Liberia is the only viable removal option because Costa Rica ‘does not wish to receive him,’ and that Costa Rica will no longer ‘accept the transfer’ of him,’” the court said.

“But Costa Rica had never wavered in its commitment to receive Abrego Garcia, just as Abrego Garcia never wavered in his commitment to resettle there,” Xinis went on.

Taken together, the judge said, the government’s conduct ran counter to the notion that ICE detention was necessary and warranted to swiftly effect Abrego Garcia’s removal to a third country.

“Respondents’ 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,” Xinis concluded, ordering Abrego Garcia’s “immediate release” from ICE custody.

Read the whole opinion here.