A federal judge in Maryland issued an emergency ruling on Wednesday to temporarily block the Trump administration from transferring Salvadoran migrant Kilmar Abrego Garcia into ICE custody immediately after his release from criminal detention in Nashville, Tennessee—halting, at least for now, a case that has become a flashpoint in a broader legal and political battle over immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered that Abrego Garcia remain under ICE supervision at the Baltimore Field Office—nearest to the Maryland district where he was originally arrested—rather than being deported immediately. She imposed a 72-hour hold to ensure Abrego has a chance to assert claims of protection under U.S. law before being potentially removed to a third country.
The emergency order follows a months-long legal saga that has involved multiple federal courts, the Supreme Court, and drawn national attention after Abrego Garcia was previously deported to El Salvador in violation of a court order—an action the Trump administration later claimed was a bureaucratic error.
Xinis said the delay is needed to prevent a repeat of what she called an “unlawful deportation,” warning that officials had taken “no concrete steps” to prevent Abrego from being summarily returned to El Salvador by a third country such as Mexico or South Sudan—nations reportedly under consideration for his removal.
She also ordered the government to give Abrego and his attorneys immediate written notice—at least 72 hours in advance—if it intends to transfer him, so he can assert fears of persecution or seek relief under immigration law.
The order landed just two minutes after U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Nashville approved Abrego’s release from criminal custody, ruling the government failed to present any compelling reason to continue detaining him ahead of trial in January.
Xinis, who has presided over Abrego’s civil immigration case since March, has expressed repeated frustration with the Justice Department’s handling of the case. At one point she likened the government’s contradictory statements to “nailing Jell-O to a wall” and criticized what she described as foot-dragging, defiance, and lack of transparency.
“We operate as a government of laws,” Xinis said during one hearing. “We don’t operate as a government of ‘take my word for it.’”
In court, she grilled DOJ attorneys and rebuked them for presenting an ICE official, Thomas Giles, who appeared unfamiliar with the details of Abrego’s case despite being the agency’s third-ranking enforcement official. Xinis called his four hours of testimony “stunning” and “insulting to her intelligence.”
Xinis emphasized that no release would be permitted without “full-throated assurances” that Abrego would remain in ICE custody near Maryland for at least 72 hours, preventing the administration from “spiriting him away to Nome, Alaska,” as she put it.
The Trump administration, which insists the case no longer falls under Xinis’s jurisdiction, is expected to appeal the restraining order.
Abrego’s lawyers say the administration has repeatedly misrepresented facts and tried to circumvent legal protections. They raised concerns that, without court intervention, the government could once again deport their client without proper legal process—this time to a third country where he risks further danger.
One such country is South Sudan, where the U.S. State Department warns of extreme violence and urges Americans traveling there to draft a will and designate insurance beneficiaries. Xinis noted that deporting Abrego there would almost certainly violate a withholding of removal order that bars his return to El Salvador.
In earlier filings, Abrego’s attorneys argued he should remain in criminal custody longer—if necessary—to avoid premature transfer to ICE and a potentially unlawful deportation.
The broader dispute has become emblematic of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement policies and willingness to test the limits of judicial oversight. Demonstrators have gathered outside the courthouse in Maryland, protesting what they call a deliberate effort to sidestep the rule of law.
In her ruling Wednesday, Xinis alluded to an ongoing motion for sanctions against the administration, citing its failure to provide clear, consistent information. “Defendants’ persistent lack of transparency with the tribunal adds to why further injunctive relief is warranted,” she wrote.
In her closing remarks, Xinis made clear her doubts remain. “You have taken the presumption of regularity and destroyed it,” she told government lawyers—suggesting that whatever trust existed at the start of the case has now been fundamentally broken.
