Inset: Kilmar Abrego Garcia in an undated photo (CASA). Background: President Donald Trump speaks with reporters in the Oval Office at the White House, Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo/Alex Brandon).
In a striking legal decision, a district court judge has dismissed the Trump administration’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, labeling it both vindictive and selective. The ruling began with a notable reference to a quote from the lead prosecutor of the Nuremberg trials, underscoring the concerns about the misuse of prosecutorial power.
In a comprehensive 32-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw Jr., appointed by Barack Obama, cited a poignant warning by then-Attorney General Robert H. Jackson. Jackson had cautioned his peers about the perils of targeting individuals before identifying the crimes, a principle that resonates with the current case.
Jackson, who later became a Supreme Court justice, famously noted, “Therein is the most dangerous power of the prosecutor: that he will pick people that he thinks he should get, rather than pick cases that need to be prosecuted.”
Judge Crenshaw drew parallels to the Abrego Garcia case, stating, “That is the situation here,” signaling his view that the prosecution was improperly motivated.
The judge’s ruling highlighted the pivotal role of evidence presented by the defense, which had previously shifted the case in Abrego Garcia’s favor. This evidence raised substantial questions about the prosecution’s motives, particularly on the due process issue of vindictiveness.
Crenshaw noted, “The Court previously found that Abrego made a prima facie showing of some evidence of a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness.” This initial finding placed the onus on the government to dispel the presumption of vindictiveness, a burden they ultimately could not meet.
In August 2025, Abrego Garcia filed a motion to dismiss his indictment, citing selective and vindictive prosecution.
In October 2025, the court found there was a “realistic likelihood of vindictiveness” behind the federal charges against him.
The Maryland father whose story came to be seen as a lodestar of the second Trump administration’s immigration agenda is by now well-known. Abrego Garcia was part of a summary deportation flight to a prison notorious for torture in El Salvador, but his deportation violated multiple court orders — both specific to him and general to that flight.
A DOJ lawyer was unceremoniously sacked after admitting the “administrative error” behind the deportation. Through a seesawing battle that has climbed all the way up the legal ladder to the U.S. Supreme Court and back down through various district courts, Abrego Garcia was eventually returned to the United States — then promptly charged with wholly unrelated crimes. He was released on bail, taken into custody by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) again in late September 2025, and then released once more.
In December 2025, Crenshaw canceled the criminal trial.
Now, after considering “the complete record in this case and from related litigation,” Crenshaw has determined the evidence before the court “sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power.”
“The Court does not reach its conclusion lightly,” the opinion goes on. “The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution.”
The order of events weighs heavily on the court’s analysis – a detailed timeline chart goes on for nearly nine pages of the ruling.
To hear Crenshaw tell it, the underlying criminal investigation in which Abrego Garcia was pulled over for speeding in November 2022 was closed long ago and only reopened due to then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche’s “now unrebutted public statements tying the reopened investigation to Abrego’s successful lawsuit,” which the judge said, “taints the investigation with a vindictive motive.”
The judge noted that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Agent Rana Saoud only learned about the traffic stop case because of Blanche, which led to her contacting her staff and others. One of the people Saoud contacted was then-acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee Robert McGuire, who drafted the criminal complaint. Notably, McGuire was also contacted by DOJ employee Aakash Singh, who reported directly to Blanche at the time, the court notes.
Overall, the court paints a picture resembling a full court press to target Abrego Garcia after the judicial branch of government – including the Supreme Court – ruled unanimously in his favor.
From the opinion, at length:
The Executive Branch closed its investigation on the November 2022 traffic stop. Only after Abrego succeeded in vindicating his rights did the Executive Branch reopen that investigation. What the Government labels as “new evidence” was not new as a matter of law. The prosecutor’s subjective good faith does not cure the retaliatory taint. Absent Blanche’s tainted investigation, Agent Saoud would not have called McGuire, Singh would not have brought him into the fold, and McGuire would not have sought an indictment against Abrego. The indictment then provided the Executive Branch cover to comply with Judge Xinis’ order to facilitate Abrego’s return to the United States as soon as possible.
Crenshaw also rejects the notion that McGuire was acting independently, while suggesting the criminal case against Abrego Garcia was a way to comply with a prior order issued by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, another Obama appointee, in the defendant’s habeas corpus case requiring his return.
“McGuire’s own words establish his dependence on Main Justice,” the opinion goes on. “Abrego’s return was outside his control. He was timing the indictment around steps Main Justice was taking to return Abrego from El Salvador. While all of this was ongoing, Judge Xinis waited for the Executive Branch to comply with her April 10, 2025 order to return Abrego to the United States.”
Related to the McGuire issue, the court says it was unable to find enough evidence to support a finding of actual vindictiveness, but the judge criticizes the government for failing to even address the evidence of presumption of vindictiveness.
“After the indictment became reality, the Government ignores McGuire’s testimony that Main Justice caused Abrego’s return to the United States, as the District of Maryland had long required,” the opinion continues. “The Government’s rebuttal to the presumption of vindictiveness does not engage with that evidence. As a matter of logic, the Government cannot rebut a presumption when it does not address the evidence supporting the presumption.”
The opinion concludes: “Abrego’s motion to dismiss the indictment must be granted.”
