In a dramatic turn of events that’s reverberating through the U.S. legal and political landscape, a federal judge in Nashville has ruled there is a "realistic likelihood" that the criminal prosecution of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, an immigrant wrongfully deported to El Salvador and later returned to face charges, may have been motivated by retaliation from the Justice Department. The case, unfolding in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr., has cast a sharp spotlight on the actions of Trump administration officials and the potential misuse of prosecutorial power.
On Friday, October 3, 2025, Judge Crenshaw issued a 16-page decision that took direct aim at top Department of Justice figures, most notably Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. According to Devdiscourse and The New York Times, Crenshaw cited "remarkable statements" Blanche made during a June 6, 2025, appearance on Fox News, where he asserted that Abrego was brought back to the U.S. solely "to face justice" after a Maryland judge challenged his deportation. The judge’s ruling pointedly referenced Blanche’s admission that the investigation into Abrego commenced only after a court found the government "had no right to deport him."
"Deputy Attorney General Blanche’s remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights to bring suit against the executive official defendants," Judge Crenshaw wrote, "rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct." The judge’s words, as reported by The New York Times, underscore the gravity of the allegations and the potential implications for the Justice Department.
The saga began in March 2025, when Kilmar Abrego—who had been living in Maryland—was deported to El Salvador, despite a 2019 court order barring his removal due to the risk of gang persecution. Abrego’s removal was challenged in a civil lawsuit before a federal judge in Maryland. His legal team argued that the deportation was not only unlawful but also placed Abrego in grave danger. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a decision handed down in April 2025, upheld the Maryland judge’s order, compelling the Trump administration to facilitate Abrego’s return to the United States.
Yet, Abrego’s return to U.S. soil in June 2025 was not the end of his ordeal. Instead, he was immediately indicted in Tennessee on charges of transporting migrants illegally as part of an alleged smuggling ring—a charge he has vehemently denied. The indictment was based on a 2022 traffic stop in which Abrego was found driving several Hispanic men, some of whom were undocumented. Federal agents, who learned of the stop at the time, initially chose not to pursue charges. It wasn’t until 903 days later—after Abrego’s successful legal challenge to his deportation—that the indictment materialized.
Judge Crenshaw homed in on this timeline in his ruling, noting the suspicious delay between the 2022 incident and the eventual indictment. "The timing of Abrego’s indictment suggests a realistic likelihood that senior D.O.J. and D.H.S. officials may have induced Acting U.S. Attorney McGuire (albeit unknowingly) to criminally charge Abrego in retaliation for his Maryland lawsuit," Crenshaw wrote. The judge’s analysis, as detailed in The New York Times, highlighted the possibility that the prosecution was less about the alleged smuggling and more about punishing Abrego for exercising his legal rights.
The ruling also shed light on internal turmoil within the U.S. Attorney’s office in Nashville. Crenshaw noted that Ben Schrader, a top prosecutor, resigned on the very day Abrego’s indictment was returned. The judge suggested that Schrader’s boss, Acting U.S. Attorney Robert E. McGuire, may have been pressured by senior officials in Washington to move forward with the charges. Such behind-the-scenes maneuvering, if proven, would mark a serious breach of prosecutorial ethics and raise troubling questions about the independence of the Justice Department during the Trump administration.
Vindictive prosecution motions are notoriously difficult to win in federal court. The legal standard requires defendants to show not only that prosecutors acted with animus, but also that the charges would not have been brought but for that animus. Judge Crenshaw’s willingness to entertain the possibility of vindictiveness is, in itself, a significant rebuke of the Justice Department’s conduct. As Devdiscourse pointed out, federal law allows for the dismissal of criminal charges if they are found to have been brought as punishment for exercising due process rights—a threshold rarely met in practice.
Abrego, for his part, has pleaded not guilty to the charges and continues to dispute the government’s characterization of him as a gang member. From the outset, Trump administration officials had painted Abrego as a violent member of MS-13, a wife beater, and even a terrorist, according to The New York Times. These public accusations, made in the wake of his wrongful deportation, have been criticized by Abrego’s lawyers as part of a broader campaign to discredit their client and justify the administration’s actions.
Judge Crenshaw’s ruling now opens the door for Abrego’s legal team to pursue discovery—seeking documents and testimony from administration officials to determine whether the indictment was, in fact, retaliatory. The judge has signaled his intention to allow a hearing on the matter, giving Abrego a rare opportunity to challenge the motives behind his prosecution in open court.
Representatives for both Abrego and the Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling, leaving many questions unanswered as the case moves forward. What is clear, however, is that the implications of Judge Crenshaw’s decision extend far beyond the fate of a single defendant. The case raises fundamental questions about the limits of executive power, the independence of federal prosecutors, and the protections afforded to those who challenge the government in court.
As the legal battle continues, all eyes will remain on the Nashville courtroom where Judge Crenshaw has made clear he intends to get to the bottom of the Justice Department’s motivations. For Kilmar Abrego, the fight is not only for his own freedom but for the principle that no one should face criminal charges as punishment for standing up for their rights.
