A US federal judge has unsealed an order revealing that the Department of Justice's prosecution of a Salvadoran man for human smuggling may constitute a vindictive prosecution, potentially brought in retaliation for his successful legal challenge against a wrongful deportation.
Emails Reveal High-Level Pressure to Prosecute
The case centres on Kilmar Ábrego García, who pleaded not guilty to human smuggling charges in a Tennessee federal court. Judge Waverly Crenshaw's recently unsealed order from 3 December compels the government to hand over documents and indicates that high-level officials, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, pushed for the indictment as a 'top priority'.
This push occurred shortly after the US Supreme Court ruled in Ábrego García's favour on 10 April 2025, ordering his return to the US following his mistaken deportation. The order notes that an email from acting US Attorney Rob McGuire stated Blanche 'would like Garcia charged sooner rather than later'.
Timeline Suggests Retaliatory Motive
The alleged smuggling incident dates back to a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, where Ábrego García was pulled over for speeding with nine passengers. State troopers discussed human smuggling but let him go with a warning. The case was referred to Homeland Security Investigations, but court records show no effort to charge him until April 2025.
Judge Crenshaw's order details that Aakash Singh, an official in the Deputy Attorney General's office, contacted McGuire about the case on 27 April 2025—the same day McGuire received the file from investigators and just days after the Supreme Court victory. By 30 April, Singh labelled the prosecution a 'top priority'. Later communications indicated a draft indictment required 'clearance' from the Deputy Attorney General's office.
Contradictions in the Decision-Making Process
These details contradict earlier assertions from Rob McGuire, who claimed he alone made the decision to prosecute without any animus towards Ábrego García. Judge Crenshaw wrote that the documents 'suggest not only that McGuire was not a solitary decision-maker, but he in fact reported to others' within the Justice Department.
In response, the US Attorney's office for the Middle District of Tennessee stated that communications with the Deputy Attorney General's office on high-profile cases are 'both required and routine', maintaining that the final decision was based on facts and evidence.
A crucial hearing on the motion to dismiss the case based on vindictive prosecution is scheduled for 28 January. The outcome could have significant implications for how immigration enforcement and prosecutorial discretion are viewed under the current administration.
