Abrego Garcia v. Noem et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia,
Petitioner,
v.
Kristi Noem, et al.,
Respondents.
Civ. No. 8:25-2780-PX
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On December 11, 2025, this Court granted Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and ordered his immediate release
from 	the 	custody 	of 	the 	Department 	of 	Homeland 	Security 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement (“ICE custody”), on the conditions imposed in the United States v. Abrego Garcia,
3:25-cr-00115-1 	(M.D. 	Tenn.) 	(“Tennessee 	Criminal 	Matter”). 	ECF 	Nos. 	110 	& 	111.
Respondents released Abrego Garcia from ICE custody that evening, around 5:00 PM.
Upon his release, Respondents issued to Abrego Garcia an “ICE Order of Supervision.”
ECF No. 112-1. The ICE Order of Supervision expressly states that Abrego Garcia is “permitted
to be at large” under “the following conditions,” to include participating in the ICE “Alternatives
to Detention” program; limiting Abrego Garcia’s travel to the state of Maryland; reporting to
“any parole or probation officer” as directed by that officer; and a residence restriction, among
others. 	Id. at 2-4. 	The ICE Order of Supervision also requires Abrego Garcia to appear in
person today at 8:00 AM to the ICE Baltimore Field Office. Id. at 2.
The ICE Order of Supervision also states that Abrego Garcia was “ordered removed” on
Case 8:25-cv-02780-PX Document 114 Filed 12/12/25 Page 1 of 5

2
October 10, 2019, ECF No. 112-1, despite no such order having issued on that date. Instead, the
ICE Order of Supervision seems to rely on an “order” issued last night from Immigration Judge
(“IJ”) Phillip Taylor. 	ECF No. 112-2. 	The Court does not opine on this newest “order” here.
But the Court does note that this “order” was issued nunc pro tunc, effective October 10, 2019.
Id.
Abrego Garcia, in turn, filed an Emergency Motion for Temporary Restraining Order
(“TRO Motion”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, asking this Court to bar
Respondents from taking him into custody when he appears for his appointment this morning at
the ICE Baltimore Field Office and until the Court can hold a hearing on the TRO Motion. ECF
No. 112.
As a preliminary matter, the Court allows for the possibility that Respondents do not
intend to violate this Court’s order at ECF No. 111 by taking Abrego Garcia into custody this
morning. 	After all, even with the new “order” issued by the IJ, Respondents also issued an
“Order of Supervision” which not only contemplates the IJ’s new “order,” but also sets release
conditions like those imposed in the Tennessee Criminal Matter. 	ECF No. 112-1. 	But if the
Court is wrong, and Respondents do intend to re-detain Abrego Garcia, the Court GRANTS the
TRO Motion because Abrego Garcia has carried his burden on all four factors articulated in
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).1
First, the Court finds that Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of any further
request for relief from ICE detention considering the IJ’s December 11, 2025 “order.” 	If the
most recent order is as Respondents claim it to be—an order of removal in effect as of October
10, 2019—then not only is Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) squarely applicable, cf. ECF
1 The purpose of a temporary restraining order is to preserve the status quo of the Court’s order at ECF No. 111 until
it can hear from the parties on what, if any, further relief is warranted. See Hoechst Diafoil Co. v. Nan Ya Plastics
Corp., 174 F.3d 411, 422 (4th Cir. 1999).
Case 8:25-cv-02780-PX Document 114 Filed 12/12/25 Page 2 of 5

3
No. 110 at 25, Abrego Garcia’s 90-day “removal period” under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 expired nearly
six years ago. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231 (a)(1)(A) (“when an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney
General 	shall 	remove 	the alien 	from 	the 	United 	States 	within 	a period 	of 	90 	days.”).
Respondents also have detained Abrego Garcia for the six-month presumptive period articulated
in Zadvydas, when conservatively considering the time spent in ICE detention since 2019,
combined with the time spent in detention in El Salvador, and in ICE custody after securing his
release in the Tennessee Criminal Matter. Nor had Respondents done anything to secure Abrego
Garcia’s third-country removal between 2019 and August 2025. 	Cf. Zavvar v. Scott, Civ. No.
TDC-25-2104, 2025 WL 2592543 at *4 (D. Md. Sept. 8, 2025). Thus, for the reasons previously
articulated in ECF No. 110 and in this Order, Abrego Garcia is likely to succeed on the merits of
any further Zadvydas claim.
Second, Abrego Garcia will suffer irreparable harm absent emergency relief. 	If, as
Abrego Garcia suspects, Respondents will take him into custody this morning, then his liberty
will be restricted once again. It is beyond dispute that unlawful detention visits irreparable harm.
Miranda v. Garland, 34 F.4th 338, 365 (4th Cir. 2022) (noting that the erroneous deprivation of
an alien’s liberty, “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable
injury”) (quoting Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)). 	Thus, this Winter factor is easily
met.
Third, the balance of equities favors temporary relief until the Court can hear further
from the parties. 	As already articulated, Abrego Garcia maintains strong interest in avoiding
unconstitutional detention, whether that be detention obtained without lawful authority, or
detention that transgresses the constitutional bounds articulated in Zadvydas. See ECF No. 110.
Respondents’ interests, on the other hand, are adequately preserved per the ICE Order of
Case 8:25-cv-02780-PX Document 114 Filed 12/12/25 Page 3 of 5

4
Supervision. 	ECF No. 112-1. 	The ICE Order of Supervision articulates Respondents’ own
conditions of release which are substantially like those imposed in the Tennessee Criminal
Matter. 	See United States v. Abrego Garcia, 3:25-cr-00115-1 (M.D. Tenn.) (“Tennessee
Criminal Matter”), ECF No. 112. Abrego Garcia does not ask that the Court take any action to
modify such release conditions. Thus, Respondents’ interest in ensuring Abrego Garcia’s
appearance for future immigration proceedings and the safety of the community have been
addressed by those conditions, in combination with the conditions imposed in the Tennessee
Criminal Matter.
Fourth, the public retains keen interest in ensuring that government agencies comply
with court orders, especially those necessary to protect individual liberties. 	In this respect, the
Court reminds Respondents that the relief this Court ordered yesterday is narrow. It grants solely
Abrego Garcia’s release under stringent supervision conditions while also giving appropriate
deference to substantive matters related to the underlying immigration proceedings. 	For the
public to have any faith in the orderly administration of justice, the Court’s narrowly crafted
remedy cannot be so quickly and easily upended without further briefing and consideration.
Accordingly, 	for 	the 	reasons 	previously 	articulated 	at 	ECF 	No. 	110 	and 	upon
consideration of the TRO Motion and accompanying evidence at ECF No. 112, the Court hereby
ORDERS the following:
1. 	Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner Kilmar Armando Abrego
Garcia in ICE custody until this Court can receive further briefing from the parties
and conduct a hearing on the TRO Motion;
2. 	By no later than midnight on December 14, 2025, Respondents shall RESPOND to
Abrego Garcia’s motion at ECF No. 112.
Case 8:25-cv-02780-PX Document 114 Filed 12/12/25 Page 4 of 5

5
3. 	By no later than midnight on December 16, 2025, Abrego Garcia shall REPLY;
4. 	The parties are directed to meet and confer to arrive at a mutually agreeable date and
time for an expedited hearing on the TRO Motion to take place after December 17,
2025;
5. 	This ORDER shall remain in full force and effect pending expedited briefing and a
hearing;
6. 	The Court further GRANTS ECF No. 113 and CLARIFIES that the injunction
previously imposed at ECF No. 20 remains in full force and effect; Respondents are
ENJOINED from removing Abrego Garcia from the continental United States
pending the resolution of Respondents’ Motion to Dissolve such order at ECF No. 72;
7. 	The Court further CLARIFIES that the Order to “provide written notice to Abrego
Garcia and all counsel of record at least seventy-two (72) hours (excluding Saturdays,
Sundays, and federal holidays) prior to the intended removal, identifying the country
to which removal is sought,” Abrego Garcia v. Noem, Case No. 8:25-cv-00951-PX
(D. Md. June 30, 2025), ECF No. 239 ¶ 4, remains in full force and effect;
8. 	Respondents SHALL immediately transmit this Order to all relevant officers, agents,
and employees under their control and who are involved in this matter and in the
Tennessee Criminal Matter.
So Ordered.
Date: 	December 12, 2025 	_______/s/___________
PAULA XINIS
Time: 7:00 a.m. 	United States District Judge
Case 8:25-cv-02780-PX Document 114 Filed 12/12/25 Page 5 of 5