In a significant ruling for immigration enforcement, a federal judge in Maryland has barred U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from re-detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national whose case has drawn national attention amid ongoing debates over deportation policies. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued the order on Tuesday, February 17, 2026, determining that a 90-day detention period for Abrego Garcia had expired and that the government lacked a realistic plan to deport him.
Abrego Garcia, who entered the United States illegally as a teenager and has since built a life in Maryland with an American wife and child, was at the center of a mistaken deportation to El Salvador last year. Despite a 2019 immigration judge's ruling that he could not be sent back to his home country due to threats from a gang that had targeted his family, he was deported anyway. The error sparked public outcry and legal challenges, leading to his return to the U.S. in June 2025 under President Donald Trump's administration.
Upon his return, authorities secured an indictment against Abrego Garcia in Tennessee for human smuggling charges, to which he has pleaded not guilty. However, the core issue remains his immigration status. Department of Homeland Security officials have maintained that he cannot remain in the country and have proposed deporting him to several African nations, including Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia, according to court filings.
Judge Xinis, in her written order, sharply criticized the government's approach. "The government 'made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success,'" she wrote. She concluded that there was "no 'good reason to believe' removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future." The judge highlighted that the government had deliberately overlooked Costa Rica, a country that has consistently offered to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee—a option he has agreed to.
The ruling comes after Abrego Garcia was released from detention in mid-December 2025, following an earlier order from Xinis. His attorney, Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, argued that immigration detention is intended solely to facilitate deportation, not to serve as punishment, and cannot be indefinite without a viable plan. In an email statement on Tuesday, Sandoval-Moshenberg said, "Since Judge Xinis ordered Mr. Abrego Garcia released in mid-December, the government has tried one trick after another to try to get him re-detained." He added that the decision recognizes the lack of genuine effort to deport his client, noting, "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 urged the government to now pursue a good-faith effort to arrange removal to Costa Rica, emphasizing the need to work out the logistical details promptly. This perspective underscores a broader contention in Abrego Garcia's legal battle: that prolonged detention without a clear path to deportation violates due process principles established in cases like Zadvydas v. Davis, the 2001 Supreme Court decision limiting indefinite detention of immigrants.
The Department of Homeland Security responded swiftly to the ruling with criticism from Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. In an email, McLaughlin stated, "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; Judge Xinis will not be satisfied until he is authorized to live in the United States forever." This statement reflects the administration's frustration with what it views as judicial overreach in immigration matters.
Abrego Garcia's journey to the U.S. began over a decade ago when he fled El Salvador as a minor amid gang violence. Settling in Maryland, he integrated into the community, marrying a U.S. citizen and fathering a child. His initial immigration proceedings in 2019 granted him protection from deportation to El Salvador under the Convention Against Torture, based on credible fears for his safety. Yet, bureaucratic errors led to his erroneous removal last year, an incident that human rights advocates have cited as emblematic of flaws in the immigration system.
The mistaken deportation prompted immediate legal action. Advocacy groups and Abrego Garcia's legal team filed lawsuits, culminating in a court order that forced the Trump administration to repatriate him. The human smuggling indictment, filed in Tennessee federal court, alleges involvement in transporting undocumented individuals, though details of the charges remain under seal pending trial. Abrego Garcia's not guilty plea was entered shortly after his return, and the case is ongoing.
Throughout the proceedings, DHS officials have insisted on alternative deportation destinations outside the Western Hemisphere, possibly to circumvent the El Salvador ban. Court documents reveal attempts to negotiate acceptance with the four African countries mentioned, but none have materialized. Judge Xinis noted in her order that these efforts appeared "purposely — and for no reason — ignored the one country that has consistently offered to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee." Costa Rica's willingness stems from its robust refugee programs and proximity, making it a practical choice.
This case has amplified discussions on the balance between national security and humanitarian obligations in U.S. immigration policy. Supporters of stricter enforcement, including some Trump administration officials, argue that cases like Abrego Garcia's incentivize illegal entry and strain resources. Conversely, immigration rights organizations point to it as evidence of systemic injustices, where errors and indefinite holds disproportionately affect vulnerable individuals.
The ruling's immediate impact is to prevent ICE from detaining Abrego Garcia anew, allowing him to remain with his family in Maryland while his legal matters proceed. However, it does not resolve his overall status; deportation to Costa Rica could still occur if arrangements are made. Sandoval-Moshenberg expressed optimism that the decision would push the government toward compliance, potentially averting further litigation.
Beyond Abrego Garcia, the order could set precedents for other immigrants facing stalled deportations. Legal experts monitoring the case suggest it reinforces limits on detention authority, particularly when third countries are viable options. DHS has not indicated immediate appeals, but McLaughlin's comments suggest internal deliberations on next steps.
As the Trump administration continues its push for enhanced border security, including proposals for mass deportations and expanded ICE operations, rulings like this one highlight judicial checks on executive power. Abrego Garcia's story, from gang-threatened youth to focal point of policy debates, illustrates the human stakes involved. For now, he remains in the U.S., his future hinging on diplomatic efforts with Costa Rica and the outcome of his Tennessee trial.
Looking ahead, advocates on both sides anticipate more courtroom battles. Immigration reform groups have called for congressional action to clarify deportation protocols and reduce errors, while enforcement proponents urge faster processing to deter future cases. Until broader changes occur, individual stories like Abrego Garcia's will continue to shape the national conversation on immigration.