The Obama-appointed federal judge overseeing human smuggling charges against illegal alien Kilmar Abrego Garcia “gravely” mishandled the case, according to a new Justice Department filing.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Tennessee made the key claim in its opening brief before the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. It asked the appellate court to overturn District Judge Waverly Crenshaw’s dismissal of a criminal indictment against Abrego Garcia — a credibly accused MS-13 gang member and wife-beater — for alleged human smuggling. The Obama-appointed Crenshaw claimed that the agency’s prosecution of the infamous “Maryland man” was vindictive.
“The prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia in Tennessee was not vindictive and the evidence before the district court established that it was not. Instead, the evidence showed that charges were brought against Abrego Garcia because the evidence conclusively established that he had committed the serious crime of human smuggling. That’s not vindictive. That’s protecting the public and the order never considered the strength of the case,” U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee Braden Boucek said in a statement responding to the filing.
According to DOJ, Abrego Garcia was pulled over by Tennessee police in 2022 and subsequently reported to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “based on evidence that he was engaged in human smuggling.” The agency noted how the Salvadoran national’s “stated route of travel made no sense, and the vehicle was full of passengers who, despite being on a long-distance road trip, had no luggage.”
While DHS’s inquiry into Abrego Garcia was closed in 2025 following his deportation to El Salvador, the agency reopened the investigation after a Maryland-based federal judge ordered his return to the United States. Meanwhile, then-Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee Robert McGuire “separately began investigating the 2022 traffic stop” and ultimately “obtained a grand-jury indictment of Abrego for human smuggling for financial gain” following further investigation.
As described by DOJ, Crenshaw dismissed the case against Abrego Garcia “on the theory that the government brought this prosecution … in retaliation for his civil suit challenging” his deportation to El Salvador. The agency noted how the Obama appointee “acknowledged that the evidence was insufficient to establish actual prosecutorial vindictiveness” but nonetheless “applied a presumption of vindictiveness to the initial indictment, a measure no court has taken before, which required findings that the prosecutor had a ‘personal stake’ in Abrego’s removal suit … and acted ‘unreasonabl[y]’ in bringing charges.”
The DOJ went on to argue that Crenshaw “gravely erred under both prongs of the presumptive-vindictiveness inquiry.”
The agency first contended that it is “undisputed” that McGuire had no stake “in Abrego’s removal suit,” and that “there is no evidence — despite the district court’s (unfounded) authorization of extensive discovery — that anyone else in the government pressured or induced” him to prosecute Abrego Garcia. It then argued that there is “nothing unreasonable” about the government’s decision to charge Abrego Garcia “for the serious crimes charged,” noting how the Salvadoran’s impending return to America “gave the government an obvious legitimate motive to prosecute him.”
“The Supreme Court and this Court have made clear that, given its potential to ‘block a legitimate response to criminal conduct’ … the ‘presumption of vindictiveness has a “limited” scope,'” the DOJ brief reads. “Yet the district court’s broad and amorphous conception of presumptive vindictiveness would dangerously expand that doctrine, necessitating unwarranted probing of the mental states and motivations of government officials and inviting courts to usurp the prosecutorial discretion constitutionally committed to the Executive Branch. This Court should reverse.”
In concluding its arguments, the DOJ warned of severe ramifications should the 6th Circuit adopt Crenshaw’s approach in the case. The agency notably argued that it would “lead to a flood of vindictive prosecution motions in high profile cases” across the country.
It’s unclear when the 6th Circuit will issue a final decision on the matter.
