Judge dismisses DOJ human-smuggling case against Abrego Garcia as vindictive prosecution

On May 22, 2026, U.S. District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr., sitting in Nashville in the Middle District of Tennessee, dismissed the federal human-smuggling indictment against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, granting the defense's motion to dismiss for "selective or vindictive prosecution." Abrego Garcia had been charged with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling — charges built on a November 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee, in which a state Highway Patrol officer pulled him over for speeding, found nine passengers in his vehicle, and allowed him to drive on with only a warning. Crenshaw found that the government had failed to rebut the "presumption of vindictiveness," writing that "the evidence before this Court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power."

The court's finding turned on the sequence of events. Federal authorities had known of the 2022 traffic stop for roughly two years and had closed the matter without charges. The investigation was reopened only after Abrego Garcia successfully challenged, in federal court in Maryland, his March 2025 deportation to El Salvador — a removal the government acknowledged had violated a 2019 immigration-court order barring his deportation to that country — and after the U.S. Supreme Court directed that he be returned to the United States. He was indicted on the smuggling charges in June 2025, shortly after his return. Crenshaw wrote that "absent Abrego's successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution," and that what the government called "new evidence" was "not new as a matter of law." The judge cited the timing of the indictment, statements by then-Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and sustained oversight of the case by other senior Justice Department officials; he stopped short of finding "actual vindictiveness," a higher evidentiary standard.

This entry records the prosecution itself — a federal criminal case a court has found was brought to punish a person for successfully challenging the government in court — rather than the dismissal, which is the corrective judicial action. The Justice Department said the ruling was "wrong and dangerous," characterized Crenshaw as "another activist judge," and stated that it will appeal, leaving the matter unresolved. The Standing also notes the institutional dimension reflected in the court's findings: senior Justice Department leadership, including the then-deputy attorney general, was tied to the decision to reopen a dormant investigation and pursue charges against a person who had prevailed against the government in court.