Immigration update

A routine ICE check-in in Baltimore led to Kilmar Abrego Garcia being detained, elevating questions about due process and potential deportation.

ICE Detains Abrego Garcia at Baltimore Office Amid Deportation Push

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who has faced a prior deportation, was detained at the ICE Baltimore field office during a Monday check-in. Attorneys say he was taken into custody immediately upon entry, shortly after his release from criminal custody in Tennessee and his return to Maryland to face new charges. ICE notified his legal team within 24 hours that he may be deported to Uganda, even as he rejected a plea to be deported to Costa Rica, a country he says offered him resettlement.

A habeas filing filed Monday morning argues that the detention without a hearing on fears of persecution violates due process and that the government is pressuring Abrego Garcia to plead guilty in Tennessee in exchange for removal. The case has focused on whether he should be removed to Uganda or Costa Rica, and on a July order by Judge Paula Xinis that if released, he should be supervised in Maryland and given at least 72 hours’ notice before any removal to a third country. The government has said it may pursue lawful immigration proceedings upon return to Maryland, while Abrego Garcia’s lawyers seek to block detention and removal to Uganda absent such steps, citing constitutional protections and the risk of persecution.

This episode lays bare the tangled overlap of criminal, civil, and humanitarian law in immigration cases. It highlights how past mistakes—such as the March deportation to El Salvador despite court orders—can resurface and complicate current proceedings. The dispute tests whether detention can be used as leverage in negotiations over plea deals, and it raises questions about due process when chewed through by federal agencies in multiple jurisdictions. The Maryland context is critical: it is a staging ground for possible removal to a third country and for the kind of supervisory conditions judges want to see if a release happens. The broader takeaway is a need for clearer rules, tighter oversight, and protections for people who face removal while their asylum or fear-of-persecution claims remain unresolved.

Highlights

The case spotlights a legal system under pressure to resolve complex human stories without eroding fundamental rights.