A federal judge in the United States has unsealed an order revealing that high-level officials at the Department of Justice (DOJ) aggressively pushed to prosecute a man on human smuggling charges only after he was mistakenly deported and then ordered back to the country.
Details of the Deportation and Prosecution
The order, made public on Tuesday 30 December 2025, pertains to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He has pleaded not guilty to federal human smuggling charges in Tennessee. The newly revealed documents show that senior DOJ officials labelled the indictment a “top priority” specifically following the administrative error that saw Abrego Garcia wrongfully removed from the US and subsequently returned under a court order.
Abrego Garcia's legal team is now seeking to have the case dismissed. They argue the prosecution is vindictive, contending it is an attempt by President Donald Trump's administration to punish him for the embarrassment caused by the botched deportation. The alleged smuggling incident occurred nearly three years prior to the 2025 indictment.
Judge Compels Disclosure of Documents
To support the claim of vindictiveness, the defence requested internal government documents detailing how the decision to prosecute was reached. On 3 December, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw filed a sealed order compelling the government to hand over some of these materials. That order was unsealed this week, providing fresh insight into the proceedings.
Judge Crenshaw had previously found there was “some evidence” that the prosecution could indeed be vindictive. He pointed to a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on Fox News, which appeared to suggest the DOJ brought charges because Abrego Garcia had successfully challenged his wrongful deportation.
Contrasting Arguments from Prosecution
In response, Rob McGuire, the Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee until late December, argued that the statements cited were irrelevant. McGuire asserted that he alone made the final decision to prosecute and stated he holds no personal animus against Abrego Garcia. This sets up a significant legal conflict over the motivation behind the charges as the case moves forward.
