DOJ accused of selective and vengeful prosecution by Kilmar Abrego Garcia's legal team, petition for dismissal of the criminal case filed
Controversial Criminal Case Against Immigrant Rights Activist Raises Constitutional Concerns
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an immigrant rights activist, is currently facing charges in Tennessee for allegedly transporting undocumented migrants. However, his attorneys argue that the government is using the criminal case to punish him for his successful fight against his unlawful removal.
The saga began in 2022 when Abrego Garcia was stopped by the Tennessee Highway Patrol but was sent on his way without a traffic ticket. However, in 2025, the government picked up Abrego Garcia off the street as part of an immigration enforcement push, unrelated to his previous events. This was followed by his wrongful deportation to El Salvador's CECOT mega-prison despite a 2019 court order barring his deportation.
Abrego Garcia's attorneys claim that the government's actions against their client are a constitutional violation, as they are using the criminal case to punish him for his successful fight against his unlawful removal. They argue that the government charged him because he refused to acquiesce in the government's violation of his due process rights, and accuse federal prosecutors of "vindictive and selective prosecution."
The prosecution against Abrego Garcia in this case was initiated by U.S. authorities, and the charges were first filed in 2025. A group of senior U.S. officials sought vengeance against Abrego Garcia for fighting back, culminating in the criminal investigation that led to the charges in the current case.
A separate judge ruled last month that Abrego Garcia must be returned to Maryland if released. If he is released from Tennessee criminal custody on Friday, he may be sent back to Maryland. His attorneys have filed a statement claiming the government is using the criminal case to punish their client for fighting his unlawful removal.
The attorneys of Abrego Garcia argue that the government's actions against their client are a violation of the most basic constitutional rights. They allege that the government did not show contrition or attempt to fix their mistake, but responded with defiance. The criminal case against Abrego Garcia is seen by his attorneys as an attempt to punish him for his successful fight against his unlawful removal.
As the case progresses, the constitutional concerns raised by Abrego Garcia's attorneys continue to be a topic of debate. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the treatment of immigrants and their constitutional rights in the United States.
Read also:
- United States tariffs pose a threat to India, necessitating the recruitment of adept negotiators or strategists, similar to those who had influenced Trump's decisions.
- Weekly happenings in the German Federal Parliament (Bundestag)
- Southwest region's most popular posts, accompanied by an inquiry:
- Discussion between Putin and Trump in Alaska could potentially overshadow Ukraine's concerns
