Justice Dept. Revives Smuggling Charges Against Kilmar Abrego-Garcia

The Department of Justice has asked a federal appeals court to revive migrant-smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the illegal migrant who is being defended by a team of elite, pro-migration lawyers.

“An appeal is necessary to … ensure that federal law is followed appropriately,” the Department of Justice said.

Abrego Garcia, dubbed “Maryland Man” by pro-migration advocates, won a prior round when his team of elite lawyers persuaded a judge to dismiss federal charges of migrant smuggling. The judge said the charges should be dropped because they are driven by “presumptive vindictiveness.”

The judge, Waverly David Crenshaw, was nominated by President Barack Obama. In a myriad ICE-related cases, Obama-nominated judges have forced the release of many arrested migrants.

Garcia’s deportation case has become political because the Democrats’ pro-migration, elite-backed faction chose to portray Garcia as an innocent victim of Trump’s 2024 mandate to deport illegal migrants.

The administration is winning the legal war, and has already confirmed a deportation order for Abrego-Garcia. Federal officials are now rejecting Abrego-Garcia’s request to be deported to his preferred country of Costa Rica, close to his home country of El Salvador.

“The prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Tennessee was not vindictive and the evidence before the district court established that it was not,” said a X message by U.S. Attorney Braden Boucek. He added:

Instead, the evidence showed that charges were brought against Abrego Garcia because the evidence conclusively established that he had committed the serious crime of human smuggling. That’s not vindictive. That’s protecting the public and the order never considered the strength of the case.

The judge’s claim of vindictive politics is politics, the Department of Justice said Monday:

While the United States respects the district court, the United States argues in today’s appellate brief that the district court did not follow the relevant Supreme Court and Sixth Circuit precedent in making its decision to dismiss the indictment against Abrego Garcia. The ruling marks a dramatic expansion of the power of courts to dismiss serious criminal charges based on subjective assessments of a prosecutor’s motivations and is an unwarranted intrusion into the Executive’s powers and responsibility to protect the public. Therefore, an appeal is necessary to seek review of the district court’s decision and ensure that federal law is followed appropriately.