A federal court document has unveiled intriguing details about the Justice Department's decision to prosecute Kilmar Abrego Garcia, suggesting a potential connection between his previous deportation and subsequent criminal charges.

In a newly unsealed order, U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw revealed that high-level DOJ officials marked Abrego Garcia's human smuggling prosecution as a 'top priority' immediately following a Supreme Court ruling that had overturned his initial deportation.

The case centers around a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee where Abrego Garcia was initially pulled over for speeding. At the time, nine passengers were in his vehicle, and state troopers discussed potential human smuggling, but he was ultimately released with only a warning. Surprisingly, no immediate charges were filed until April 2025.

Internal communications exposed by the court order suggest the prosecution involved more than just local decision-makers. Rob McGuire, then-Acting U.S. Attorney for the Middle District of Tennessee, appeared to be coordinating with higher-ranking DOJ officials, including Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's office.

Specifically, Aakash Singh from the Deputy Attorney General's office contacted McGuire on April 27, the same day he received a file from Homeland Security Investigations. Singh's April 30 email explicitly stated that prosecuting Abrego Garcia was a 'top priority' for their office. By May 15, McGuire had communicated that Blanche wanted Garcia charged expeditiously.

Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling charges and is actively seeking case dismissal, arguing the prosecution is retaliatory—a potential attempt by the Trump administration to punish him for the previous deportation embarrassment. Judge Crenshaw has already indicated there is 'some evidence' supporting this claim, particularly noting a statement by Deputy Attorney General Blanche that seemed to suggest charging Abrego Garcia in response to his deportation case victory.

The ongoing legal proceedings highlight complex intersections between immigration enforcement, prosecutorial discretion, and potential administrative motivations. As the case continues, it promises to shed light on decision-making processes within federal law enforcement agencies.