Nashville, Tennessee – June 23, 2025 - A case that has long become symbolic of President Donald Trump’s controversial deportation policy took a new turn over the weekend: U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes (Case No. 3:24-cr-00096) on Sunday ordered the release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia – under conditions and in recognition of the presumption of innocence. But his release is, in all likelihood, a legal fiction. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has already announced that if he is released, he will be taken immediately back into custody – with the goal of deporting him before a criminal trial can even begin.
"Every defendant has the right to a fair and complete determination of whether they must remain in custody pending trial," Holmes wrote in her ruling. The government had not sufficiently demonstrated that Abrego Garcia poses a concrete danger to the public or that he would evade trial. The claim that he might intimidate witnesses or obstruct proceedings also lacked convincing evidence. Yet Holmes herself acknowledged in her decision that this is a "largely academic exercise," as ICE had already indicated in court that it would take the man back into custody regardless of any judicial ruling.
At the June 13 hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Rob McGuire argued that the possibility of immediate deportation by ICE was a reason to keep Abrego Garcia in pretrial detention. Judge Holmes countered decisively: "If I decide to release Mr. Abrego, I will impose conditions of release – and the U.S. Marshal will release him. What ICE does then is not within my jurisdiction." A hearing scheduled for Wednesday is now set to determine whether and under what conditions Abrego Garcia can actually be released – or whether immigration authorities will preempt the decision once again. The U.S. government has meanwhile already filed an appeal against the release order.
Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador in 2024, even though a valid deportation protection from 2019 was still in effect. At that time, an immigration judge had determined that Abrego faced serious threats from criminal gangs in his home country. Only after an order by the Supreme Court, issued in response to international protests, was he allowed to return. The current human smuggling charges are based on a 2022 traffic stop in which Abrego was pulled over while driving with nine other passengers in the vehicle. Officers let him go with only a warning for speeding. It was only weeks after his deportation that the case file was suddenly reactivated. According to his defense team, the charges are a transparent attempt to retroactively justify the government’s unlawful actions. Prosecutor McGuire, in contrast, cited not only the smuggling allegations but also unverified claims by cooperating witnesses accusing Abrego of drug and weapons trafficking and of abusing women he transported. None of these claims have been included in any formal indictment to date.
The case has now become a test of the rule of law amid increasingly aggressive deportation policies. Abrego Garcia has denied all accusations and pointed to the lack of credible evidence. The fact that the U.S. government now appears to be attempting once again to remove him from the country without a court ruling and before any trial has begun is drawing sharp criticism from human rights organizations and constitutional scholars. Renowned law professor César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández of Ohio State University explained that the government could deport Abrego even without a conviction, since he entered the country illegally. The legal hurdles in immigration law are significantly lower: "The burden of proof lies with the individual – not the government." According to Professor García Hernández, ICE could pursue so-called third-country deportation if El Salvador is ruled out based on the 2019 protection order. But even that would require finding a third country willing to accept him – a hurdle that has often proven insurmountable in the past.
How the U.S. government decides in the coming days will be watched far beyond Nashville. The question is clear: In Trump’s America, does the priority lie with criminal justice – or with deportation policy? For now, Kilmar Abrego Garcia remains in custody. Not because a court has ruled it – but because the executive branch wants it that way. The next hearing before Judge Holmes is likely to determine whether that changes – or whether this case will go down in history as yet another example of the collision between the rule of law and Trump’s deportation regime.
English 
German 
