A federal judge in Maryland on Tuesday rejected the Trump administration’s push to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, issuing a procedural order that sharply criticized the Justice Department for attempting to force the court’s hand on timing and outcome. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis found the government’s request was “not ripe” and set a new briefing schedule, with filings due April 20 and a hearing on April 28.
The ruling keeps Abrego Garcia, described in Fox News coverage as an MS-13 suspect, inside the United States for now, extending a legal saga that has stretched across more than a year of civil proceedings. And it raises a blunt question: how many more months will a single district judge keep an illegal immigrant with alleged gang ties on American soil while the federal government scrambles through one removal plan after another?
Hours before the order dropped, lawyers for the Trump administration told the court they still intend to send Abrego Garcia to Liberia, even though a new U.S.-Costa Rica agreement would allow him to be sent there instead. Costa Rica is reportedly Abrego Garcia’s own preferred destination. The administration chose Liberia anyway, and Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons argued during a hearing that allowing removal to Costa Rica would be “prejudicial” to the United States because of “significant” government resources and capital already invested in negotiating the Liberia arrangement and the removal of certain other migrants there.
Xinis did not mince words. The Justice Department had demanded a ruling by mid-April, asserting the court “must” act by that date. Xinis rejected the demand outright.
In her order, the judge wrote:
“Respondents cannot dictate the Court’s schedule or the outcome of the motion. Nor can they appeal a judicial order that does not exist.”
That last line was a direct shot at the administration’s legal posture. The government had been pushing for a fast resolution, and, by implication, positioning itself to appeal if the judge didn’t comply. Xinis made clear there was nothing yet to appeal.
She went further, calling the government’s timeline a “fantasy” and accusing the administration of responsibility for the delays it now complained about. The judge said the case required a “careful recapitulation” and compared the process to “eating an elephant, one bite at a time.”
The administration’s frustration with federal judges is no secret. Senior Trump administration officials have described judges blocking executive action as “activist”, a characterization that carries real weight with millions of Americans who watched district courts stall border enforcement for years. The tension between the executive branch and the judiciary has been a recurring theme, visible in everything from the president’s historic appearance at Supreme Court oral arguments to fights over immigration orders at every level of the federal bench.
Trump administration lawyers have also suggested Xinis lacks jurisdiction to review the case at all, citing matters of diplomacy and foreign sovereignty. The judge has not accepted that argument.
The Abrego Garcia case has a timeline that would test anyone’s patience. In 2019, an immigration judge issued an order referenced throughout the proceedings. Despite that order, Abrego Garcia was deported to his home country of El Salvador in March 2025. The Trump administration then returned him to the United States late last spring, a move that itself drew scrutiny.
By November 2025, a determination found that Abrego Garcia had not been issued a final notice of removal needed to deport him to a third country. An immigration judge then issued a retroactive removal order in December, an unusual step that attempted to patch the procedural gap.
Xinis has presided over Abrego Garcia’s civil cases for the last thirteen months. In February, she said the government had failed to provide any “good reason to believe” it planned to remove Abrego Garcia to a third country in the “reasonably foreseeable future.” The judge went even further in her latest order, accusing the government of having “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success.”
Four African nations were previously identified as potential removal destinations. None of those plans materialized. Now the administration has settled on Liberia, and Xinis is unconvinced.
Legal battles between the White House and the courts have become a defining feature of this era. Whether it involves Democratic leaders filing lawsuits to block executive orders or judges issuing sweeping injunctions, the pattern is the same: policy collides with procedure, and the public waits.
The decision to pursue Liberia over Costa Rica is the most puzzling element. Costa Rica has a functioning agreement with the United States. Abrego Garcia himself reportedly prefers it. And yet Acting ICE Director Lyons argued that switching destinations would waste the diplomatic capital already spent on the Liberia track.
That argument may make sense inside the Beltway, where sunk costs and interagency negotiations carry real bureaucratic weight. But to ordinary Americans, it looks like the government is fighting over where to send an alleged gang member rather than simply getting him out of the country by the fastest available route.
One official referenced in the proceedings even suggested Abrego Garcia could “remove himself” to Costa Rica, a statement that underscores how muddled the government’s own position has become.
The broader friction between the administration and the judiciary has shown up in other high-profile moments as well. When five Supreme Court justices skipped the State of the Union shortly after a major ruling, it signaled a level of institutional tension that goes well beyond any single immigration case.
Xinis placed responsibility squarely on the government. Her order stated that “if anyone, Respondents bear the responsibility for substantial delay.” The administration, predictably, sees it differently, viewing the judge’s extended proceedings as an obstacle to lawful enforcement.
Both sides have a point, and neither comes out clean. The government’s shifting removal plans, El Salvador, then back to the U.S., then four African nations, now Liberia, with Costa Rica available but rejected, do not project the image of a well-coordinated enforcement strategy. At the same time, thirteen months of civil proceedings over the removal of a single individual with alleged MS-13 ties is not a timeline that inspires public confidence in the courts.
The next filings are due April 20. The hearing is set for April 28. Between now and then, Abrego Garcia remains in the United States.
The administration has won significant legal victories elsewhere. The Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling clearing the way for DOJ to dismiss Steve Bannon’s contempt conviction showed that the courts can move in the administration’s favor when the legal footing is solid. The question in the Abrego Garcia case is whether the government’s own procedural missteps have undercut what should have been a straightforward removal.
Several critical details remain unresolved. The exact terms of the 2019 immigration judge order have not been fully laid out in public reporting. The contents of the November 2025 determination and the December retroactive removal order are referenced but not detailed. Which four African nations were previously targeted for removal, and why each fell through, has not been publicly explained.
And perhaps most importantly: what happens if the April 28 hearing produces yet another delay? At what point does the government’s inability to execute a removal plan become indistinguishable from a de facto grant of residency?
The injunction keeping Abrego Garcia in the country remains in place. The government has disputed both his current status and the injunction itself. But disputing an order and overcoming one are two very different things, and so far, the administration has managed only the former.
For taxpayers and communities that bear the consequences of drawn-out immigration proceedings, the Abrego Garcia saga is a case study in institutional dysfunction. A man with alleged gang ties sits in the United States month after month while the government argues with a judge about which continent to send him to.
When enforcement becomes this tangled, the system isn’t working for anyone, except the person it’s supposed to remove.
By signing up, you agree to receive our newsletters and promotional content and accept our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. You may unsubscribe at any time.