Federal prosecutors on Monday submitted an appellate brief asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reverse a May 22, 2026, ruling by U.S. District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. that dismissed a grand jury indictment against Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia.
Background of the case
The case originated from a traffic stop on November 30, 2022, in Putnam County, Tennessee, when state troopers pulled over a vehicle driven by Abrego Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador. Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) initially opened an inquiry but closed it on April 1, 2025, after the defendant was transferred back to El Salvador.
Following his deportation, Abrego Garcia challenged the removal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. That court ordered federal authorities to facilitate his return to the United States. After the Fourth Circuit denied a stay of that order on April 17, 2025, HSI reopened the investigation. Acting U.S. Attorney Robert McGuire then led a new probe that resulted in a grand jury indictment in Nashville on May 21, 2025, charging Abrego Garcia with conspiracy to transport illegal immigrants and unlawful transportation of illegal immigrants for financial gain.
District court dismissal
Judge Crenshaw dismissed the indictment, finding that, while there was no direct evidence of vindictive prosecution, the circumstances created a presumption of vindictiveness. He cited the timing of the reopened investigation, regular communications between local prosecutors and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, and public remarks by then‑Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche during a televised interview. In that interview, Blanche said, “In this case, we had a judge in Maryland tell us … you have no right to deport him. So what should we do as a Department of Justice when a judge is accusing us of doing something wrong? We have an obligation to everyone, including you, to investigate it. And that’s exactly what we did.”
Government’s appeal arguments
In its brief, the Justice Department argues that the district court misapplied the legal standard for prosecutorial vindictiveness. The government contends that a presumption of vindictiveness cannot be applied to an initial charging decision. Prosecutors note that Acting U.S. Attorney McGuire acted independently and had no personal stake in the Maryland civil deportation proceedings. During an evidentiary hearing, McGuire testified, “About the charging decision, that was my decision. I never talked to Mr. Blanche, Mr. Bove, anybody at Homeland Security that wasn’t the case agent and the SAC… And I really kind of didn’t want to, because I wanted to make it—I wanted to feel good about it on my own.”
The government also emphasizes that Abrego Garcia’s court‑ordered return to the United States provided a legitimate, non‑retaliatory reason to revive the case. New evidence—including additional witness statements, phone records, and license‑plate‑reader data—supports the claim that the indictment addresses genuine public‑safety concerns.
Next steps
The Department of Justice has requested oral argument before the Sixth Circuit as it seeks to reinstate the indictment. If the appellate court grants the request, the case could proceed to trial, potentially setting a precedent for how federal prosecutors handle alleged vindictive prosecutions in immigration‑related matters.
Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.
