The Department of Justice filed a motion Friday urging a federal judge to dissolve the injunction that prevents the Trump administration from detaining Kilmar Abrego Garcia and deporting him to Liberia. The filing, obtained by Fox News Digital, argues that the court's own order is the sole obstacle to his removal, creating a legal contradiction that the government wants resolved by April 17.
The DOJ's argument is straightforward: a court cannot block deportation and then hold the government responsible for the prolonged detention that results from the block.
"The Court cannot both impose the impediment that delays removal and consequently prolongs detention and, at the same time, hold that the resulting detention is impermissibly prolonged."
That framing matters. It exposes a judicial catch-22 that the administration is now forcing into the open.
Abrego Garcia, 31, has become one of the most contested figures in the national immigration debate since March 2025, when the administration deported him to a prison in his native El Salvador. Officials acknowledged the deportation was an "administrative error," given a 2019 court order that prevents his removal to El Salvador. The Supreme Court later ruled the administration had to work to bring him back to the United States, as Fox News reports.
He was returned to the U.S. in June to face human smuggling charges in Tennessee related to a 2022 traffic stop. He has pleaded not guilty and is seeking dismissal of the charges on grounds of vindictive and selective prosecution.
He was released from detention in December after the administration had not obtained the final notice of removal order needed to deport him to a third country. Since then, he has been under the supervision of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Let's be clear about who we're talking about. This is someone the administration claims is a member of MS-13. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager. He is facing human smuggling charges. And yet the judicial machinery has spent months ensuring his continued presence in this country.
U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis last month converted her previous emergency order blocking ICE from immediately detaining Abrego Garcia into a longer-term form of injunctive relief sought by his lawyers. She stated the Trump administration failed to provide the court with any "good reason to believe" it plans to remove him to a third country in the "reasonably foreseeable future."
Xinis did not hold back. She accused the administration of making empty threats about African countries that never agreed to accept him, while ignoring a seemingly available alternative.
"Their persistent refusal to acknowledge Costa Rica as a viable removal option, their threats to send Abrego Garcia to African countries that never agreed to take him, and their misrepresentation to the Court that Liberia is now the only country available to Abrego Garcia, all reflect that whatever purpose was behind his detention, it was not for the 'basic purpose' of timely third-country removal."
Abrego Garcia's attorney said in December that Costa Rica had given him asylum status months ago and that Abrego Garcia himself has said he's willing to be sent there. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons has said he will instead be removed to Liberia.
The legal specifics here are important, but the broader picture is more telling. A federal judge is functionally shielding an illegal immigrant with alleged gang ties and active human smuggling charges from deportation, then criticizing the government for not deporting him fast enough to the judge's preferred destination.
The DOJ's filing cuts through this neatly:
"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."
The administration is not asking for extraordinary power. It is asking to exercise the ordinary authority that the executive branch holds over immigration enforcement, an authority that has been confirmed by decades of precedent. Deciding where to deport someone is a sovereign function. A district court second-guessing which third country the government selects is a remarkable expansion of judicial reach into foreign affairs and immigration operations.
The administration has asked the judge to rule on its motion by April 17. That deadline will test whether the court is willing to release its grip on a case that has stretched well past the original emergency posture.
Every month this drags on, the case drifts further from anything resembling immigration enforcement and closer to a sustained judicial veto over executive deportation authority. That should concern anyone who thinks the elected branches of government, not individual district judges, should set immigration policy.
Abrego Garcia entered this country illegally. He faces serious criminal charges. A court order created a narrow restriction on where he can be sent. The government is trying to comply with that restriction and still remove him. And somehow, the result is that he walks free under ICE supervision while lawyers argue about whether Liberia or Costa Rica is the appropriate destination.
The system isn't broken by accident. It's performing exactly as certain people designed it to perform.
