Judge Paula Xinis Issues Injunction Halting Deportation On Thursday a Maryland federal judge issued an order that bars any further detention of Kilmar Abrego Garcia and temporarily blocks attempts to deport him, citing a procedural flaw in the 2019 immigration decision that granted him withholding of removal but never issued a formal removal order[1]. The injunction follows a 2019 finding that Garcia faced a “well‑founded fear” of danger in El Salvador, which had previously protected him from removal[1]. Both reports note that the judge’s action directly prevents ICE from moving him to African countries as previously planned[1][2].

Supreme Court Mandate Triggers Return From El Salvador The Supreme Court earlier ordered the Trump administration to bring Garcia back to the United States after he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March 2025, where he endured imprisonment in a notoriously brutal facility[2]. After his return, ICE announced a series of removal plans targeting African nations, but those plans were halted by the Maryland injunction[2]. The Supreme Court decision and the subsequent judicial block are consistently reported across both articles.

Human‑Smuggling Charges Remain Unresolved Garcia continues to face federal human‑smuggling and conspiracy charges stemming from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, where he pleaded not guilty and is seeking dismissal on grounds of selective prosecution[1][2]. Both sources indicate that the criminal case proceeds independently of his immigration battle, and his attorneys argue the charges are politically motivated[1]. The denial of a request to reopen his asylum case adds further complexity to his legal situation[2].

Government May Appeal, Raising Future Uncertainty The Department of Justice is expected to appeal Judge Xinis’s ruling to the Fourth Circuit, which could overturn the injunction if it finds the implied removal order sufficient to proceed[1]. The appeal could also revive ICE’s removal plans and potentially reopen the debate over Garcia’s eligibility for protection under the 2019 withholding order[1]. Both articles acknowledge that the outcome of the appeal will shape the next phase of the deportation dispute.