U.S. judge vows to rule ‘soon’ in marathon hearing on Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation as Eswatini emerges as possible third-country destination
A federal judge is weighing whether the government may deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a third country such as Eswatini, after courts ordered his return; Judge Paula Xinis pressed DHS for details and said she would rule “soon.”
Key takeaways
- Central legal question: whether the government can transfer Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a third country after prior deportation problems; see CBS News reporting and ABC News reporting.
- Eswatini flagged: DHS named Eswatini as a potential destination but the kingdom has not given a case-specific acceptance; DHS described “assurances in principle” to receive certain deportees (CBS News).
- Judge Xinis pressed DHS: she demanded specifics on timetables, diplomatic notes and assurances and said she would issue a ruling “soon.” (CBS News).
- Broader stakes: the outcome could limit detention length, shape third-country removal practice and affect local communities and legal services, especially in places like Los Angeles.
Court history and what led here
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, was deported to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, after immigration authorities alleged gang ties. His lawyers challenged that removal as unlawful; a federal district court and the U.S. Supreme Court later ordered the government to return him to the United States while legal claims proceeded. For background see Wikipedia background and the Supreme Court opinion.
Post-return proceedings and detention issues
After he was brought back to the U.S., Garcia faced unrelated federal criminal charges in Tennessee. Although eligible for bail, judges in separate jurisdictions expressed concern he could be immediately re-deported if the government tried again, which resulted in restrictive custody arrangements until coordinated court orders in Maryland and Tennessee allowed release on bail while blocking immediate removal (ABC News).
What happened at the marathon hearing
In a lengthy hearing before U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, federal lawyers and immigration officials were pressed to explain steps taken to identify a country that will accept Garcia and what assurances exist that he would not face torture or persecution if sent abroad. Judge Xinis repeatedly demanded documentary evidence — cables, diplomatic notes and firm timetables — and expressed frustration at what she characterized as unclear or slow responses from federal counsel (CBS News; WAND-TV reporting).
ICE testimony: witnesses said that if a third country provided explicit approval, removal could occur within 72 hours — but Judge Xinis has barred any removal while litigation continues. Garcia’s lawyers argue indefinite detention while the government searches for a willing country violates constitutional and statutory limits (CBS News; ABC News).
Eswatini’s role and other third-country options
DHS identified several nations it says could receive certain deportees. Eswatini (formerly Swaziland) was named by DHS officials as a place where the U.S. asserted it had “agreements in principle” to return people, with claimed safety assurances — but reporting makes clear Eswatini has not given a specific, formal acceptance for Garcia himself (CBS News).
Other countries: Ghana and Uganda were discussed early on; both publicly declined to accept Garcia after initial contacts, with Ghana’s foreign minister explicitly rejecting the idea and Uganda likewise declining. Those refusals have complicated DHS’s efforts and left the agency searching for alternatives (CBS News; ABC News; regional reporting).
Garcia’s preference: he has reportedly expressed a preference for Costa Rica, which has indicated possible willingness to accept him; DHS has not prioritized Costa Rica as its primary option, creating a further point of contention in court (ABC News).
Legal and diplomatic stakes
At issue is whether the government can lawfully remove someone to a third country when the person’s home country presents obstacles to re-entry or when foreign governments have not explicitly agreed to accept the individual. Judges have demanded documentary evidence showing concrete diplomatic commitments — not just generalized assurances (CBS News; ABC News).
Detention limits: Garcia’s attorneys invoke Supreme Court precedent to argue the government cannot hold him indefinitely while it hunts for a country willing to receive him. Government lawyers counter that the obligation to remove him remains and that third-country transfers can be lawful when properly arranged. The Supreme Court’s earlier intervention to order Garcia returned was an uncommon rebuke of deportation practice (Supreme Court opinion).
Government statements and court record
DHS and ICE told the court they are working to identify and secure a third-country destination and described diplomatic outreach to multiple nations. A DHS witness testified the agency had reached “assurances” in principle with Eswatini about receiving certain deportees but acknowledged Eswatini had not provided a case-specific acceptance for Garcia. The agency also admitted earlier notifications to Garcia’s lawyers about imminent removal were sometimes premature or incorrect (CBS News; ABC News).
Status now: judge promises decision “soon”
After the hearing, Judge Xinis told parties she intends to issue a ruling soon. Until that ruling, the court has blocked removal and Garcia remains in U.S. custody under restrictive conditions despite being free on bail in a related criminal case. The judge’s forthcoming decision will determine whether DHS can pursue third-country removal options like Eswatini or whether courts will further constrain the government’s approach (CBS News; WAND-TV).
Implications for Los Angeles, California
Public safety and local law enforcement: Los Angeles County’s large Salvadoran and Central American communities may view high-profile deportation disputes as affecting trust and cooperation with police. City and county law enforcement agencies could face shifts in community relations depending on federal handling of complex removals (ABC News).
Legal services demand: A ruling that constrains deportation practice or limits detention could spur local litigation and increase demand for immigrant legal aid in Los Angeles. Public defenders and clinics should prepare for potential upticks in calls and filings (Supreme Court opinion).
Diplomatic ripple effects: The Eswatini matter illustrates how U.S. immigration choices can reach distant countries. Local organizations serving African and Central American migrants may see renewed interest in how the U.S. coordinates removals with foreign governments (CBS News; regional reporting).
Political and practical effects: the case raises questions for moderate Angelenos about government competence, rule of law, and humane treatment of migrants. Families with relatives at risk of removal may face unfamiliar diplomatic and legal hurdles if third-country deportations grow more contested.
Reporting notes and sources
This article draws on court reporting, government statements and legal documents. Key sources include CBS News coverage of the hearing, ABC News reporting, regional reporting such as NOTUS regional reporting and News From The States, and court records including the Supreme Court opinion and Wikipedia background.
Judge Paula Xinis: “I expect to rule soon,” the judge said, pressing the government for clear plans, timetables and documentary proof before allowing any third-country removal to proceed.
