Federal prosecutors are asking the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revive two human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, arguing that a lower court wrongly concluded the case was likely motivated by vindictive prosecution.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Justice Department has asked a federal appeals court to reinstate criminal charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, rejecting a district judge’s conclusion that the Salvadoran man was likely prosecuted in retaliation for successfully challenging his removal from the United States.
In a filing Monday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, prosecutors argued that the lower court’s analysis was “erroneous at every step” and said the government had legitimate reasons for pursuing two federal human smuggling charges against Abrego Garcia, according to The Hill.
Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty to the charges, which arose from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee.
State troopers had stopped him for speeding and discovered that he was transporting several men who had no luggage.
The criminal case developed after a separate immigration dispute in which Abrego Garcia challenged the Trump administration’s decision to deport him to a prison in his native El Salvador.
He was brought back to the United States in June 2025 after the Supreme Court directed the administration to “facilitate” his return.
Federal prosecutors now argue that the circumstances surrounding that return explain why the government proceeded with criminal charges rather than establishing that the prosecution was retaliatory.
“The government had an obvious interest in protecting the public by prosecuting Abrego after courts ordered his return,” prosecutors wrote in Monday’s filing.
“There is nothing suspect about electing not to prosecute a criminal alien and instead remove them, but upon their court-ordered return to prosecute them for criminal conduct that poses a risk to public safety,” the government added.
The appeal challenges a May ruling by U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw, who concluded that the conduct of Justice Department officials, including public statements surrounding Abrego Garcia’s case, reflected “an abuse of prosecuting power.”
Crenshaw’s finding placed the human smuggling prosecution in jeopardy by determining that Abrego Garcia had made a sufficient showing that the charges were likely the product of vindictive prosecution.
The Justice Department disputes that conclusion.
In its appeal, the government argued that comments from department officials did not establish improper hostility toward Abrego Garcia and emphasized that career prosecutors were responsible for bringing the charges.
“The United States provided objective evidence that the charges were brought for legitimate reasons by a decision maker who incontestably harbored no animus,” prosecutors wrote. “The district court relied on speculation rather than objective proof, second-guessing a prosecutor’s actions based on its own subjective reasoning.”
Federal prosecutors maintain that the decision to charge Abrego Garcia was based on the conduct documented during the 2022 Tennessee traffic stop rather than his legal battle over deportation.
The government’s position is that removing him from the country rather than prosecuting him initially did not prevent officials from bringing charges once federal courts required his return.
The district court, however, viewed the sequence of events differently and considered both the timing of the prosecution and statements made by Justice Department officials in reaching its conclusion.
The case now puts that disagreement before the 6th Circuit.
The appeals court is being asked to determine whether Crenshaw improperly inferred retaliatory intent from the government’s actions and whether the criminal case should be allowed to move forward.
If the Justice Department prevails, Abrego Garcia would again face prosecution on both federal human smuggling counts.
The government’s filing asks the 6th Circuit to reverse the lower court’s ruling and restore the charges so the criminal proceedings can continue.
Original article
Comments