In a significant ruling on Tuesday, a federal judge denied U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) the authority to re-detain Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia, determining that the government has exhausted its 90-day detention period without presenting a realistic plan for his deportation.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of Maryland delivered a scathing assessment of the Department of Homeland Security’s deportation efforts, stating the government “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success.” Judge Xinis concluded there was no reasonable belief that Abrego Garcia’s removal was likely in the foreseeable future.

The case has become emblematic of broader immigration policy debates under the Trump administration. Abrego Garcia, who has an American wife and child and has resided in Maryland for years, entered the United States illegally as a teenager. His situation grew more complex in 2019 when an immigration judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador due to credible gang threats against his family.

Despite this ruling, ICE mistakenly deported him to El Salvador last year. Following public pressure and a court order, the administration returned him to the U.S. in June—but only after securing an indictment against him for human smuggling in Tennessee, charges to which he has pleaded not guilty.

The government’s subsequent attempts to deport Abrego Garcia have focused on several African nations, including Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia. Judge Xinis highlighted a troubling aspect of these efforts, noting officials have “purposely—and for no reason—ignored the one country that has consistently offered to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee, and to which he agrees to go.” That country is Costa Rica.

Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin expressed strong disagreement with the ruling. “If this matter were actually about the law or due process, Kilmar Abrego Garcia would already be deported and would never set foot in this country again,” McLaughlin wrote in an email. “Judge Xinis will not be satisfied until he is authorized to live in the United States forever.”

The case underscores a fundamental principle in immigration law: detention is meant solely to facilitate deportation, not serve as indefinite punishment. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Abrego Garcia’s attorney, emphasized this point, noting that since Judge Xinis ordered his client’s release in mid-December, “the government has tried one trick after another to try to get him re-detained.”

“In her decision today, she recognized that if the government were truly trying to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia from the United States, they would have sent him to Costa Rica long before today,” Sandoval-Moshenberg stated.

The attorney suggested that moving forward, the government should engage in good-faith efforts to coordinate Abrego Garcia’s removal to Costa Rica, which has expressed willingness to accept him.

This case reflects the complex interplay between domestic immigration enforcement priorities and international refugee considerations. It also illustrates the tensions between administrative deportation policies and judicial oversight of due process protections for non-citizens.

Immigration advocates have pointed to Abrego Garcia’s case as an example of what they describe as increasingly aggressive and sometimes chaotic deportation practices, while administration officials maintain they are simply enforcing existing immigration laws.

As this legal battle continues, it remains unclear whether the government will pursue further appeals or begin working with Costa Rican authorities on a potential transfer. Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia still faces the separate human smuggling charges in Tennessee, adding another layer of complexity to his already convoluted immigration case.