In late August 2025, U.S. immigration enforcement once again collided with constitutional limits. Over just two days, a man previously deported under contested practices was taken back into ICE custody, with federal courts stepping in to block his immediate removal. The case has exposed sharp tensions over third-country deportations, a practice that has been steadily expanding but remains poorly tested in the courts.
The detainee at the center of this dispute, Kilmar Ábrego García, was arrested on August 25 in Baltimore. ICE stated it intended to deport him not to his country of nationality, but to Uganda, despite his lack of ties there. Within hours, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis issued a temporary order halting the deportation, citing unresolved constitutional questions. Washington Post reporting, Aug. 25, 2025.
This new twist raises profound questions about due process, habeas petitions, and the outer limits of executive authority in immigration enforcement. It also ties directly into issues CandidViews has tracked before, from ICE detention conditions to removal proceedings analysis.
The Rise of Third-Country Deportations
Historically, deportation meant removal to one’s country of nationality or, in some cases, last habitual residence. That principle was embedded in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to effectively banish individuals to places with no legal or personal connections.
But in recent years, DHS has experimented with third-country removals—sending individuals to states that agree to accept them even if they have no prior connection. According to an AP explainer published August 24, 2025, Uganda, Costa Rica, and several other countries have been approached in these deals.
On this site, we previously examined the broader legal foundations of deportation law in our article on due process in immigration removal. The Ábrego García case now provides a real-world test of those doctrines.
August 25: The Baltimore Detention
On the morning of August 25, ICE agents arrested Ábrego García after he declined a plea deal that might have directed his deportation to Costa Rica. Instead, officials revealed plans to place him on a plane to Uganda.
Journalists covering the case confirmed DHS’s stated position, while immigrant-rights attorneys condemned the move as “arbitrary banishment.”
ICE issued a public statement the same day, portraying the action as the removal of a “dangerous offender”. Yet legal analysts countered that ICE’s framing obscured the fact that no final court determination had authorized deportation to Uganda.
Readers may recall our earlier feature, The Expanding Power of ICE Detainers, which foreshadowed this kind of aggressive enforcement posture.
Habeas Petition and Judicial Block
Ábrego García’s legal team immediately filed an emergency habeas petition, asserting that removal to Uganda without prior notice or hearing violated due process. Habeas corpus—literally “you shall have the body”—remains the last constitutional safeguard against unlawful detention or banishment.
By evening, Judge Paula Xinis issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) blocking the deportation. In her ruling, she emphasized that the proposed removal raised “serious constitutional questions” under the Fifth Amendment and exceeded statutory authority under the INA.
This episode underscores the enduring role of habeas petitions, which we analyzed earlier in Habeas Corpus and Immigration Detention. Without that tool, Ábrego García could already have been on a flight out of the country.
The Supreme Court Docket: Parallel Fights Over Enforcement Power
While Baltimore courts were busy on August 25, the U.S. Supreme Court had already been drawn into immigration enforcement disputes. On August 24, the administration asked the justices to expand agents’ power to stop and question suspected undocumented immigrants, challenging a California district court ruling that imposed reasonable suspicion limits (Noem v. Perdomo) .
If the Court grants the government’s request, the balance between Fourth Amendment protections and immigration enforcement authority will shift even further toward executive discretion. For CandidViews readers, this connects directly to our running coverage of constitutional checks on immigration policing.
August 26: Detention Conditions and Facility Litigation
On August 26, immigration policy again spilled into federal courtrooms. The Department of Justice sought a stay of a district court order requiring closure of the Everglades-area immigration detention facility, dubbed by critics “Alligator Alcatraz.” Civil-rights suits alleged unlawful conditions and blocked access to counsel .
The government argued closure would “cripple enforcement capacity,” echoing similar arguments DHS has made whenever courts press against detention expansion. For context, see our previous report on ICE detention centers and due process.
Due Process as the Central Issue
What links the Ábrego García case, the Supreme Court petition, and the Florida facility dispute is a single concept: due process.
Under constitutional doctrine, noncitizens are entitled to fair proceedings before losing liberty or being removed. Courts have traditionally deferred to executive discretion in immigration, but even that deference has limits. Deportation to a third country with no notice, no hearing, and no chance to contest the destination tests those limits directly.
As we argued in Immigration Due Process Reform, deportation should not become exile without law. The August 25 TRO illustrates that judges are beginning to assert those boundaries more forcefully.
Human and Political Dimensions
Beyond the legal questions, the human consequences are immediate. Deportation to an unknown country fractures families and communities. Immigrants live in heightened fear, unsure where ICE may attempt to send them next.
Politically, these cases are unfolding in the shadow of the 2026 election cycle, where immigration is already shaping campaign narratives. Candidates are framing third-country deportations as either a necessary enforcement tool or a human-rights violation. The outcome of Ábrego García’s litigation will shape that debate.
The Road Ahead
As of August 26, 2025, Kilmar Ábrego García remains in custody, his removal temporarily blocked. DHS has signaled its intent to appeal. Whether higher courts uphold Judge Xinis’s ruling will determine not just his fate, but the broader future of third-country deportations.
The coming months will show whether habeas petitions and constitutional review can restrain executive ambitions—or whether the United States is entering a new era of deportation without borders.
For readers tracking this evolving issue, we will continue coverage in our Deportation/Removal section and Legal Analysis hub.
Discover more from CandidViews
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.