In a dramatic turn of events in Tennessee, the human smuggling trial of Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been halted. As the case approaches a critical evidentiary hearing in just two weeks, Abrego Garcia is pressing the Department of Justice to release “two categories of key information.” He accuses the Trump administration of failing to provide these details, which he argues could lead to the dismissal of his case on the grounds of vindictive prosecution.

Abrego Garcia’s legal team contends that the DOJ’s refusal to disclose information about government witnesses, along with a “privilege log of all documents” reviewed by U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, suggests an unwillingness or inability to counter the presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness. This move, they argue, reinforces their belief in the administration’s biased intentions against their client.

The defense has criticized what it describes as an “unrelenting effort to impede an objective inquiry” into the motives behind the prosecution. They claim that on the matter of the privilege log, the Trump administration has persistently ignored their formal requests for information on when it might be provided.

A November 17 email from Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, included as an exhibit in the motion, underscores the tension. Woodward, who had previously criticized the defense’s efforts to probe the DOJ’s decision-making processes, warned of seeking “extraordinary” appellate relief if Judge Crenshaw compelled Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to testify about the case’s origins.

Woodward expressed indignation at Abrego Garcia’s suggestion of misconduct, asserting that the defendant’s assumption of bad faith undermines the integrity of the United States. Despite this, the judge has already recognized a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness,” authorizing Abrego Garcia’s request for discovery and a subsequent evidentiary hearing.

Concluding the letter, Woodward indicated that the government, “without waiving any objections,” would provide a privilege log. This document would offer a brief description of each item reviewed by the court in camera, along with any applicable privilege claims.

In December, the judge in Abrego Garcia’s habeas corpus case found he was held by ICE “without lawful authority” for months following his return to the U.S. from a prison notorious for torture in El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, a Barack Obama appointee, ordered Abrego Garcia’s release, also finding the Trump administration “affirmatively” misled the court on the facts.

The criminal defendant has claimed that the human smuggling charges amounted to retaliation for embarrassing the government in civil litigation.

On that score, Abrego Garcia says more of the same is afoot into the present day, claiming that the DOJ is “playing fast and loose” with Crenshaw, also an Obama appointee.

“It is clear that relevant, discoverable documents exist—some were produced to the Court—and the government should not be permitted to change positions now to prevent the defense from obtaining them,” the motion said, encouraging the judge to take this “stonewalling” as more evidence of the “stunningly vindictive nature of this prosecution.”

“The government’s about-face amounts to ‘playing fast and loose with the courts,’ and ‘changing positions ‘to suit an exigency of the moment,’” the defense added.

The evidentiary hearing is scheduled for Jan. 28, and on Thursday, Crenshaw ordered the DOJ to respond to Abrego Garcia’s motion to compel, at the latest, by Jan. 21, one week before the key proceedings.

Previously, Crenshaw canceled a January trial date to hold the one-day evidentiary hearing to see whether the DOJ can provide “objective, on-the-record explanations” for the human smuggling charges that rebut the defendant’s “prima facie showing of vindictiveness.”

The judge also explained why the hearing is so “critical.”

“Whether the government can produce such evidence is critical, for ‘[i]f the government fails to present evidence sufficient to rebut the presumption, the presumption stands and the court must find that the prosecutor acted vindictively,’ leading to ‘dismissal of the charges or other appropriate remedies,” Crenshaw wrote. “However, ‘[i]f the government produces evidence to rebut the presumption, the defendant must prove that the offered justification is pretextual and that actual vindictiveness has occurred.’”

In short, if the DOJ fails at the hearing the case will be tossed, but if the DOJ does enough to turn the tables, the burden will “shift back” to Abrego Garcia to show the “government’s rationale for prosecuting him is pretextual and that his prosecution is actually vindictive.”