The Biden administration is under fire once again as it attempts to navigate the politically charged case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an accused human smuggler and illegal immigrant whose potential release on bail has sparked sharp legal and constitutional questions. While one federal judge has laid out the conditions for his release, the Department of Homeland Security appears poised to circumvent the ruling — by deporting Abrego Garcia to an unspecified third country.

Abrego Garcia, who was deported to El Salvador earlier this year in violation of a 2019 court order, was later returned to the U.S. by Supreme Court order to face federal smuggling charges in Tennessee. He stands accused of transporting illegal aliens across state lines while residing unlawfully in Maryland — a charge he denies.

On Wednesday, a Tennessee judge ruled that Abrego Garcia qualifies for release while awaiting trial, having determined that he poses neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. The court stipulated that he must reside with his U.S. citizen brother in Maryland and comply with standard pretrial restrictions.

But just one day later, his legal team filed an emergency motion, warning that DHS may deport their client immediately upon release — not to his native El Salvador, but to a mysterious “third country.”

“If this court does not act swiftly, then the government is likely to whisk Abrego Garcia away to some place far from Maryland,” his attorneys wrote to U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis.

During a scheduling conference on Thursday, government attorney Jonathan Guynn confirmed the administration’s intent to place Abrego Garcia in ICE custody and begin deportation proceedings. When asked whether El Salvador was the target destination, Guynn replied, “To a third country, is my understanding.” He could not offer any timeline for the deportation, admitting only that there are “no imminent plans.”

The case exposes yet another legal contradiction within the Biden administration’s immigration enforcement policies. While thousands of illegal immigrants are released into the U.S. with little oversight, DHS now appears determined to remove a defendant mid-trial — despite a judge’s order and an ongoing criminal case.

Judge Barbara Holmes of the U.S. District Court in Nashville expressed deep concern over whether ICE would comply with her order, noting:

“I don’t think I have any authority over Immigration and Customs Enforcement.”

Holmes also stated she has no doubt about her control over the local U.S. Attorney’s office, but ICE — operating under Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas — answers only to the executive branch, raising red flags about potential separation-of-powers violations.

This isn’t the first time the Biden administration has used third-country deportations to dodge legal constraints. According to The Hill, DHS has increasingly pursued removals not to migrants’ home countries but to unstable regions such as South Sudan and Libya.

In Abrego Garcia’s case, DHS previously ignored a 2019 court order barring his removal to El Salvador due to credible fears of persecution. Nonetheless, he was deported to the country’s notorious CECOT mega-prison in March, only to be later returned by order of the U.S. Supreme Court to face criminal charges tied to a 2022 traffic stop.

Now, the administration’s handling of his potential re-release — combined with its apparent intent to remove him before trial — could spark a new legal showdown over whether federal immigration authorities can nullify judicial authority through bureaucratic maneuvering.

Both the DOJ and Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have been instructed to file briefs by Friday regarding the terms of his release. Judge Xinis has not yet ruled on whether she will intervene to block the administration from deporting the defendant or transferring him out of Maryland.

This high-profile case raises urgent constitutional questions about executive overreach, due process, and whether the Biden administration will once again use federal agencies to sidestep the courts and undermine the rule of law.