Justice Department Asks Appeals Court to Reopen Dismissed Case of Wrongfully Deported Man
The Department of Justice urged the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse a Tennessee judge’s May dismissal of human‑smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego García, arguing the lower court misapplied the law.
The Justice Department on Monday asked the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate human‑smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego García, filing a brief that challenges a May ruling that dismissed the indictment as tainted by presumptive vindictiveness. Prosecutors told the appeals court the district judge erred in concluding senior Justice Department officials improperly influenced the investigation and indictment.
The May decision by U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw in Nashville threw out two counts against Abrego García after finding objective evidence — including the timing of the reopened investigation and public comments by senior officials — supported a presumption that the prosecution was retaliatory. Crenshaw wrote that the government had not rebutted that presumption, calling the record an "abuse of prosecuting power."
Abrego García’s case began to attract national attention after he was removed to a Salvadoran prison in March 2025 despite an immigration judge’s earlier order preventing deportation because of credible threats to his safety. Federal courts, including a unanimous unsigned order from the Supreme Court in April 2025, directed the government to facilitate his return to the United States so he could pursue immigration remedies.
After Abrego García was brought back to the U.S., prosecutors in Tennessee relied on evidence from a 2022 traffic stop to seek an indictment. The government has said that reopening the investigation and pursuing criminal charges were legitimate responses to the underlying facts; the Justice Department’s appellate brief reiterates that senior officials’ statements reflected lawful public‑safety concerns and that the Tennessee U.S. attorney made the charging decision.
Critics and Abrego García’s lawyers argued the prosecution was part of a pattern during the current administration in which politically sensitive matters drew sustained attention from Main Justice. Judge Crenshaw noted communications between the local prosecutor and deputies in Washington and cited statements by now‑Attorney General Todd Blanche (then a deputy) as part of the record that supported his finding of presumptive vindictiveness.
The appeal places a disputed and high‑profile question before the 6th Circuit: whether the district court correctly applied the narrow constitutional doctrine protecting defendants from retaliatory prosecutions. If the appeals court reverses, the case would return to Tennessee federal court; if it affirms, the dismissal will stand and the government could seek further review.
The matter remains legally and politically charged. The Justice Department framed the filing as a straight legal contest over the proper application of vindictive‑prosecution law and prosecutorial decision‑making; Abrego García’s counsel and immigrant‑rights groups say the brief is the latest sign of politicized law enforcement under the current administration.
Why it matters
The appeal tests how appellate judges will apply long‑standing protections against retaliatory prosecutions at a moment when scrutiny of Justice Department decision‑making is high; a reversal would allow prosecutors to pursue criminal exposure for a man who became the subject of a Supreme Court order, while an affirmance would be a rare rebuke with implications for DOJ oversight and immigration enforcement strategy.
What to watch
Watch for the 6th Circuit’s docketing of the appeal and any briefing schedule or motions for expedited review; the court’s decision (or a potential en banc rehearing) could shape standards for proving vindictive prosecution and determine whether this politically sensitive prosecution can proceed in the lower courts or is ended on procedural grounds.