Judge dismisses criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia

A federal judge in Tennessee dismissed the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, saying prosecutors pursued the case vindictively after his wrongful deportation had already become a political fight.

The ruling turned a case the Trump administration had used to press its immigration message into a fresh courtroom setback. It also renewed attention on the government’s handling of Abrego Garcia after courts had already questioned the deportation that sent him to El Salvador.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw said in the order, as reported by BBC News, that the court did not reach the decision lightly. He said the record pointed to an improper motive rather than a routine charging decision.

In an account of the ruling published by PBS News, Crenshaw wrote that the evidence before the court “sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power.” CNBC’s report on the dismissal said he also cited former attorney general Robert H. Jackson’s warning that prosecutors must not pick a person first and then search for a crime.

“The evidence before this court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power.”

• Waverly Crenshaw, U.S. District Judge, via PBS News

Abrego Garcia, 30, had been charged in a human smuggling case tied to a 2022 Tennessee traffic stop. The charges came after the deportation fight had already drawn national attention. The case drew wider attention still after the Trump administration deported him to El Salvador in March 2025, despite an earlier immigration ruling that barred his removal.

That protection dated to 2019, when an immigration judge found he could face persecution if returned to El Salvador. That earlier order became central to the later political and legal fight. The later deportation turned his case into a broader dispute over due process and executive power.

Why the dismissal matters

The dismissal does not resolve Abrego Garcia’s immigration status, and it does not amount to a finding that every allegation against him was false. It does remove the criminal case the administration had used to define him publicly and returns attention to the deportation dispute and the earlier order that had protected him from removal.

For the White House and the Justice Department, the ruling is harder to dismiss than an acquittal or a witness problem. Crenshaw did not say prosecutors lacked evidence on the underlying allegations; he said the prosecution itself was tainted by motive.

That distinction matters because immigration cases often move between civil and criminal systems. Administrations have long used criminal charges to underline enforcement priorities, but Crenshaw’s order suggests courts may scrutinize that strategy when the timing of charges and a defendant’s public profile point in the same direction.

The order also leaves the administration without a case it had used as proof of public-safety enforcement. Instead, the ruling places the government’s own decisions at the center of the dispute.

It was not immediately clear whether the Justice Department would appeal. For now, the case ends with a federal judge concluding that one of the Trump administration’s most politically charged immigration prosecutions cannot proceed.