St. Kilmar Rides Free? Federal Judge Dismisses Criminal Charges Against Notorious ‘Maryland Father’

Susie Moore, RedState

If you had told me a year ago that I’d still be writing on the saga of St. Kilmar (aka Kilmar Abrego Garcia, aka “Maryland Father”), I’d have thought it absurd. And yet, here we are.

Another chapter in the never-ending legal tale has unfolded, this one complete with the dismissal of the criminal case against him for human smuggling (which had been pending in the Middle District of Tennessee).

HOLY CRAP! Judge just dismissed criminal case against Garcia pic.twitter.com/9y6JSsCTWg
— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) May 22, 2026

This dismissal by Judge Waverly Crenshaw probably shouldn’t come as a complete surprise — Crenshaw has previously tipped his hand in terms of his view of the prosecution.

On Friday, Crenshaw ordered the criminal indictment (charging Abrego with conspiracy to transport aliens and unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens) dismissed. His accompanying opinion made clear in no uncertain terms that he believes the Department of Justice (DOJ) behaved outrageously in reopening the case and engaged in retaliatory prosecution of Abrego.

As a refresher on how we got here:

In or around 2016, Abrego entered the U.S. illegally.

In 2019, he was issued a removal order, but he then received a “withholding of removal,” which stipulated that, while he could be deported, he could not be sent back to his home country of El Salvador.

In March 2025, due to an administrative oversight, Abrego was removed and sent back to El Salvador, where he was housed, for a time, at CECOT (a maximum security prison) before being transferred to a lower security facility while he became a political football stateside.

While the legal tussle over his habeas/deportation case raged on in Maryland District Court, then up through the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and on to the Supreme Court, there was another issue afoot: It seems that St. Kilmar of El Salvador allegedly was part of a human smuggling enterprise from 2016 until the time of his ICE detention and repatriation to El Salvador — in May 2025, a grand jury in the Middle District of Tennessee returned an indictment on the two aforementioned felony counts.

Since then, the legal wrangling has continued, both in the criminal case and the habeas/deportation case(s), the latter of which is currently back up on appeal before the 4th Circuit. With Friday’s ruling by Crenshaw, the criminal case is now dismissed, although the DOJ is almost certainly going to appeal the ruling.

Some of the key portions of Crenshaw’s decision are included below:

In short, the timing of Agent VanWie’s decision to reopen the closed HSI investigation of the November 2022 traffic stop and Blanche’s now unrebutted public statements tying the reopened investigation to Abrego’s successful lawsuit taints the investigation with a vindictive motive. That vindictive taint continued with Singh’s close substantive oversight of McGuire’s and his prosecution team’s work leading to the indictment. Finally, after the indictment was presented, the Executive Branch found a way to return Abrego to the United States to comply with the District of Maryland’s order to facilitate his return. While the Court finds insufficient evidence of actual vindictiveness, the Court concludes that the Government has failed to rebut the presumption of vindictiveness. The evidence it labels as newly discovered was available to be obtained with due diligence long before April 2025. Even more, it does not explain the Government’s change in position to remove Abrego and not prosecute him to then prosecute and not remove him. McGuire’s subjective explanations also do not cure the retaliatory taint that set the investigation and resulting indictment in motion. Because the presumption of vindictiveness remains unrebutted, the indictment must be dismissed.

…

“[A] prosecutor’s exercise of coercive power must be impartial . . . [,] evenhanded . . . [,] [and] applied without favoritism or bias . . . .” Zakhari, 85 F.4th at 385 (Kethledge, J., concurring). Then-Attorney General Robert H. Jackson cautioned that when “the prosecutor picks some person whom he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that [is] the greatest danger of abuse of prosecuting power . . . .” Robert H. Jackson, The Federal Prosecutor, 31 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 3, 5 (1940). The evidence before this Court sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power.

The Court does not reach its conclusion lightly. The objective evidence here shows that, absent Abrego’s successful lawsuit challenging his removal to El Salvador, the Government would not have brought this prosecution. The Executive Branch closed its investigation on the November 2022 traffic stop. Only after Abrego succeeded in vindicating his rights did the Executive Branch reopen that investigation. What the Government labels as “new evidence” was not new as a matter of law. The prosecutor’s subjective good faith does not cure the retaliatory taint. Absent Blanche’s tainted investigation, Agent Saoud would not have called McGuire, Singh would not have brought him into the fold, and McGuire would not have sought an indictment against Abrego. The indictment then provided the Executive Branch cover to comply with Judge Xinis’ order to facilitate Abrego’s return to the United States as soon as possible.

Abrego’s motion to dismiss the indictment must be granted.

As noted, the dismissal will likely be appealed, and the habeas case presently is up on appeal as well. We’ll continue to keep an eye on this one and provide updates as warranted.

READ MORE RED STATE ARTICLES BY SUSIE MOORE

Editor’s Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump’s agenda and insulting the will of the people.

Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump’s mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.