The Trump administration has asked a federal judge to lift an order that has blocked the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia, reigniting a high-profile legal fight over immigration enforcement.
The Department of Homeland Security filed a motion asking U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis to dissolve her injunction that has prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia. The move came on a Friday and makes clear the administration wants the case resolved quickly and on enforcement grounds. This is one of the more visible clashes between the courts and the administration’s approach to border and removal policies.
Garcia’s situation has been watched closely because it touches on mistaken removals, alleged criminal activity, and broader questions about executive authority to remove noncitizens. From a Republican point of view, the government is simply trying to follow the law and carry out lawful removals, especially when a foreign government has agreed to accept an individual. The administration framed its filing as removing the only obstacle standing in the way of a pending deportation.
In its court papers, the government said Liberia has agreed to accept Garcia and that ICE could arrange a charter flight within a short window. Officials reported that a contractor handling removals prepared a “mock itinerary” showing a charter could carry Garcia to Liberia roughly five days after the government gets the green light. The administration asked Judge Xinis to rule on the motion by April 17 to avoid further delay.
The Trump administration said it is ready to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia and asked U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis to dissolve her order blocking that from happening. In a motion filed Friday, the Department of Homeland Security said the order is the only impediment currently preventing the U.S. from carrying out Abrego Garcia’s deportation.
Legal filings submitted by the administration indicated that Liberia’s government remains willing to accept Abrego Garcia and that Immigration and Customs Enforcement could arrange a charter plane to send him to the West African country in roughly five days.
In a declaration, an ICE official said the agency is “confident that Mr. Abrego Garcia’s removal would be imminent” if Xinis were to lift her order. The administration similarly said in its new court filing that the government is prepared to remove Abrego Garcia from the U.S. “in an extremely expeditious manner” once it has been dissolved, and asked that Xinis issue a ruling on the motion by April 17.
Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who had been living in Maryland with his family, was mistakenly deported to El Salvador in March 2025. The Trump administration had said Abrego Garcia was a member of the gang MS-13, which Abrego Garcia has denied.
The government emphasized that it has logistical plans in place and that an ICE declaration expressed confidence removal would be imminent if the injunction were lifted. Officials told the court the contractor’s mock itinerary shows a charter could be arranged quickly and that Liberia has signaled willingness to receive Garcia. Those operational claims are central to the administration’s request for a prompt ruling.
The Justice Department warned the court that “any attempt by this Court to permanently enjoin the government from exercising its authority to remove the Petitioner from this country is in direct contradiction to established judicial norms, and a clear error of law.” That language underscores the administration’s argument that judicial interference in removal authority should be narrow and temporary. From the administration’s perspective, prolonged court restraints risk undermining the rule that governs removals.
Garcia’s case goes back to March 2025, when immigration authorities arrested him in Maryland and mistakenly deported him to El Salvador’s CECOT mega-prison, a facility with documented human rights concerns. A 2019 judicial order had barred his deportation to El Salvador because of worries he might face violent targeting there. That prior order is a key reason judges have been cautious about where he can be returned.
After his initial removal, a federal judge ordered the government to bring Garcia back to the United States, and the Supreme Court later upheld that return, resulting in his arrival back in June. Once back, the Justice Department pursued a grand jury indictment related to alleged human smuggling tied to a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee. Garcia pleaded not guilty, and a judge later found that certain charges or decisions had been driven by improper motives, ordering his release from ICE custody in December.
Judge Xinis has a record in this case of ruling against the administration, and she has criticized what she sees as repeated threats to remove Garcia to African countries when those plans lack clear credibility. She said the government has “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success.” That skepticism matters because courts weigh both the credibility of removal plans and the legal protections owed to people at risk if sent to specific destinations.
Garcia’s lawyers argue there is no reason to send him to Liberia when Costa Rica, which previously granted him asylum status, has offered to accept him. That argument raises questions about the least risky and most legally appropriate place to send someone who has disputed safety concerns about return to their country of origin. The dispute now centers on competing claims about what removal options are viable and what the courts should permit.
