U.S. judge says he will rule “soon” on Kilmar Abrego Garcia after marathon hearing as government seeks third-country removal amid Eswatini deportation refusal
Lede: A U.S. judge said he will rule soon on whether Kilmar Abrego Garcia can remain detained as the government pursues third-country removal after Eswatini, Uganda and Ghana declined to accept the Salvadoran national amid ongoing legal battles.
Key takeaways
- Judge Paula Xinis heard an extended habeas corpus challenge over Abrego Garcia’s detention; reporting cited Streetcar Suburbs News and Notus.
- The government testified that DHS and the State Department sought third-country options — Eswatini, Uganda and Ghana — but those countries have so far declined to accept him.
- The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous order directing Abrego Garcia’s return is available as the Supreme Court order (PDF).
Background: what led to this hearing
Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, was initially deported to El Salvador in March 2025 but was later ordered returned to U.S. custody after legal challenges. The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld that return; see the Supreme Court order (PDF) and the Wikipedia: Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia background summary.
After his return in June 2025, Abrego Garcia was indicted on charges including conspiracy and unlawful transportation of illegal aliens. He was once released on bond, then detained again by ICE as authorities pursued removal options beyond El Salvador due to court limits on immediate deportation.
Third-country removal efforts and international pushback
At the marathon hearing, government lawyers described diplomatic outreach to secure a third country willing to accept Abrego Garcia. Officials identified Eswatini (formerly Swaziland), Uganda and Ghana as possibilities. Reporting on these outreach efforts was detailed by Notus and Streetcar Suburbs News.
- Eswatini was reported to have been formally requested by the State Department but had not agreed to accept him at the time of testimony.
- Uganda declined to accept him, according to government disclosures in court.
- Ghana publicly stated it would not accept Abrego Garcia, a position communicated to U.S. officials.
The government also said Costa Rica was discussed as a backup option if other efforts failed (Notus).
Legal issues: detention, timing and precedent
Central to the court’s review was whether the government may lawfully continue to detain Abrego Garcia while pursuing removal to countries that have not agreed to receive him. Federal law and Supreme Court precedent constrain detention when removal is not imminent. Judge Xinis demanded that the government show concrete progress toward deportation rather than speculative diplomatic efforts (Streetcar Suburbs News).
“The judge pressed government lawyers to demonstrate timely, tangible steps toward removal and ordered regular written updates on negotiations.”
Defense counsel argued that indefinite detention without a real prospect of removal violates statutory and constitutional limits. Government attorneys countered that active diplomatic efforts justify continued detention while removal channels are pursued (Notus).
What the judge heard in court
During the lengthy hearing, an ICE official testified that the State Department had only recently filed a formal request with Eswatini. Judge Xinis required the government to provide regular written updates and signaled that her forthcoming decision would rest on the presence or absence of demonstrable progress toward removal (Streetcar Suburbs News).
Public and diplomatic signals
The public refusals and reported declines from foreign governments highlight the diplomatic complexity of third-country removals. Countries may refuse for legal, political or logistical reasons; those refusals strengthen arguments by advocates and defense lawyers that extended detention lacks a realistic removal pathway (Notus).
Implications for San Luis Obispo, California
Though this is a federal case, local effects could be significant in San Luis Obispo County. Key areas of impact include:
- Economic and labor concerns: The county depends on agricultural and seasonal workers; high-profile enforcement can cause fear and disrupt labor supply.
- Legal and social services: Local legal aid organizations, university clinics and nonprofits may see increased demand for counsel and know-your-rights outreach.
- Public trust and civic engagement: Residents and officials may call for clearer federal communication and humane treatment of noncitizens.
- Policy ripple effects: A ruling on detention while pursuing third-country removal could shape practices statewide and influence cooperation between local agencies and ICE.
Beyond institutional effects, the case can cause stress for families and communities—schools, faith groups and social service providers often become points of support during such policy uncertainty.
Sources and further reading
Full reporting and documents cited in court and coverage include:
- Notus: “Trump administration Kilmar Abrego Garcia hearing: Ghana, Eswatini”
- Streetcar Suburbs News: “Trump administration now wants to remove Abrego Garcia to Eswatini”
- Wikipedia: “Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia”
- U.S. Supreme Court order (PDF)
- Reporting on related court activity — MyJournalCourier
- The Pulse of NH: related coverage
- Video coverage and public reaction (YouTube)
What’s next: Judge Xinis pledged to rule “soon” on whether Abrego Garcia may lawfully remain detained while the government pursues third-country removal — a decision that could set precedent and influence local communities, including San Luis Obispo.
