Kilmar Abrego Garcia speaks to people who held a prayer vigil and rally on his behalf outside the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building in Baltimore, Maryland, on Aug. 25, 2025. Lydia Walther Rodriguez with CASA interprets for him. (Photo by William J. Ford/Maryland Matters)
WASHINGTON — Following a dismissal of criminal charges the Trump administration lodged against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the wrongly deported Maryland resident Thursday pressed a federal judge to prevent his removal to any country that is not Costa Rica, which has agreed to accept him as a refugee.
The filing in the federal District Court for the District of Maryland comes after a federal judge in Nashville, Tennessee, on May 22 dismissed the U.S. Department of Justice’s criminal indictment charges of human smuggling that stemmed from a 2022 traffic stop. The judge called the prosecution “vindictive and selective.”
Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition before Maryland federal Judge Paula Xinis argues that the Trump administration did not make a genuine effort to remove him to a country where he would not be harmed, persecuted, or potentially sent back to his home country of El Salvador. He has had protections against deportation to El Salvador since 2019.
The Trump administration is trying to again deport Abrego Garcia to the west African country of Liberia.
Abrego Garcia, whose wrongful deportation to a brutal Salvadoran mega-prison known as CECOT cast a national spotlight on the Trump administration’s aggressive deportation campaign, has agreed to be removed to Costa Rica because the Central American country will grant him protections and refugee status.
But the Trump administration would only allow for his removal if he pleaded guilty to the Tennessee criminal indictment, which was dismissed last week. Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty and since then, the Trump administration has tried to remove him to the African nations of Eswatini and Uganda.
“Considered cumulatively, the Government’s message is clear: because Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his unlawful removal to CECOT, declined the Government’s plea offer, and has continued to prevail in courts, the Government would rather seek to unlawfully remove him to a distant third country than lawfully remove him to the country he has designated,” according to the filing. “That is not a removal policy. It is punishment.”
The new filing asks Xinis to make a final order to resolve Abrego Garcia’s habeas petition by barring the Trump administration from deporting him to Liberia, or any country that is not Costa Rica. The filing also asks for the Trump administration to be prevented from redetaining Abrego Garcia, unless he will be removed to Costa Rica.
Abrego Garcia was brought back to the U.S. from El Salvador to face the criminal indictment. Several courts, including the Supreme Court, found his removal to that country illegal, but the high court stopped short of requiring the Trump administration to return him to the United States.
An incarcerated woman holds her infant daughter while seated in a rocking chair inside a shared room in the nursery unit at the Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center in Vandalia, Mo. This year, legislators in at least five states have considered legislation that would reshape how pregnant people are treated in jails and prisons. (Photo by Amanda Watford/Stateline)
A growing number of states are reexamining how the criminal legal system treats pregnant and postpartum women behind bars.
This year, legislators in at least five states, including Kentucky, Ohio, South Carolina, Utah and Virginia, have considered legislation that would reshape how pregnant people are treated in jails and prisons. The measures vary, but some seek to expand eligibility for alternatives to incarceration during pregnancy, restrict or prohibit restraints during labor and delivery, and strengthen data and reporting requirements.
The Utah and Virginia bills were signed into law in March and April, respectively. In Utah, the new law restricts the shackling of pregnant and postpartum women, and requires state prisons and jails to track the number of pregnant people in their custody, as well as incarcerated mothers of children under 18.
In Virginia, one of the new laws requires correctional facilities to adopt lactation policies for pregnant and postpartum incarcerated people by December 2028. A separate new law allows courts to consider home or electronic incarceration programs for pregnant or postpartum women, with certain exceptions.
The Kentucky legislature adjourned for the year without passing a similar measure there, but the bills in Ohio and South Carolina are still under consideration. Ohio’s legislative session runs through the end of the year, while South Carolina’s continues until mid-May.
The latest legislative activity comes amid growing scrutiny of conditions faced by pregnant people in prisons and jails, as well as increased interest in nursery and community-based programs for mothers.
At least nine states have prison nursery programs, and about a handful of others are considering or developing similar programs.
In Wisconsin, the state Department of Corrections said in early April that the agency is still working to develop a program for incarcerated mothers and their newborns, but has faced challenges due to funding and facility capacity limits.
The Justice-Involved Women and Children Collaborative at the University of Minnesota this spring launched what the group describes as the first comprehensive national database tracking state policies affecting pregnant people in custody.
The interactive tool documents more than 460 active policies across the country, including statutes on the use of restraints, access to abortion and access to menstrual products.
The database fills a longstanding gap in information about how state systems regulate pregnancy in correctional settings. Policies vary widely not only from state to state, but sometimes among facilities within the same state. Federal data also is limited. The most recent national statistics on pregnant incarcerated people, which were released last year, reflect prison populations from 2023.
This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Wisconsin Examiner, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.
The Waupun Correctional Institution, the oldest prison in Wisconsin built in the 1850s, sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood (Photo/Wisconsin Examiner)
Advocates for people incarcerated in Wisconsin prisons gave input for a planned update of the state prison code in a virtual hearing Monday afternoon.
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
The hearing gave members of the public a chance to comment on the statement of scope for the upcoming review, which broadly outlines the Wisconsin Department of Corrections plans to update rules regarding resources available in state prisons.
The advocacy group Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing (EXPO) said in a Facebook post on Sunday that the policies in Chapter 309 of Wisconsin’s administrative code “directly shape daily life for incarcerated people,” including food, visits, hygiene and religious practices.
“Whether you’ve been incarcerated, have a loved one inside, or simply believe in dignity and fairness your voice belongs here,” the group said.
Questions at the hearing included whether the department would be speaking with incarcerated people about the upcoming rule update; a DOC employee said there are no specific plans at this point.
The last time the section of the state’s prison code relating to resources for people in prison was significantly revised was more than a decade ago, with the revision completed in 2013, according to the scope statement. The agency would update the entire section to reflect changes in the law and changes in DOC operations and practices. The scope statement cites a 2018 law as an example of a change that needs to be addressed.
The alternative to the update is to keep “outdated policies which do not adequately reflect the current state of the law and a rule which needs clarification and reform,” the scope statement said. The updates, it added, will likely not have an economic impact on the agency.
Susan Franzen of the advocacy group Ladies of SCI brought up a section of the code regarding leisure time for incarcerated people. It states that the DOC “shall provide as much leisure time activity as possible for inmates, consistent with available resources and scheduled programs and work.” Incarcerated people are to be allowed to participate in leisure time activities for at least four hours per week, and institutions that have the facilities to allow more “should do so.”
The code states that leisure time activity is “free time outside the cell or room during which the inmate may be involved in activities such as recreational reading, sports, film and television viewing, and handicrafts.”
Franzen asked whether there is monitoring to make sure incarcerated people are getting as much time as they can outside or in a dayroom. She said she’s heard some facilities structure meals and standard counts in a way that leads to people spending up to an hour in their cells after a meal, and asked if there is a way to improve efficiency and allow people to spend more time outside of their cells.
Another section of the code mentioned by Franzen says that a warden will allow an incarcerated person to have 12 adult visitors on the visiting list. A warden can approve more than 12 visitors on the list if the first 12 are close family members.
A DOC visitation policy for adult prisons that was updated earlier this year generally allows for this to occur. It also says that any additions or deletions for an individual visitor on the list are allowed once every six months. Franzen questioned why incarcerated people can’t be allowed more visitors on the list.
Since the last revision, the state has seen court decisions addressing correctional issues including religious practices, mail and personal property, which the proposed rule will take into consideration, the scope statement says. The agency would also make clarifications to the rules and cut outdated parts when necessary.
The chapter addresses resources for incarcerated people in state prisons, including mail, news media, publications, visitation, special events, access to the courts, personal property, food, personal hygiene, leisure time activities, telephone calls, clothing, canteen, inmate account funds, inmate compensation and religious practice, the scope statement says.
According to the Department of Corrections, members of the public who weighed in must also submit their comments in writing, and written comments submitted by May 1 will receive the same consideration as comments made during the hearing.
Caitlin Washburn, administrative rules coordinator for the DOC, said there will be opportunity for additional feedback once the proposed rule and changes have been drafted. She said there will be at least one additional public hearing and a public comment period during which people can submit written comments.
The Wisconsin State Legislature’s website allows interested people to receive personalized e-mail notifications, including administrative rules notices.
Incarcerating someone in Wisconsin correctional institutions costs far more than tuition at a state technical college.
According to data in a 2025 report to the Legislature, it costs on average $144.88 per day to house someone in an adult corrections facility, or $52,881 a year. Those numbers come from a 2023-24 study, the most recent data available.
The report notes that some facilities are more expensive than others. The maximum-security Columbia Correctional Institution costs $256.66 per day. The medium-security Stanley Correctional Institution costs $111.94.
The annual cost of tuition at a Wisconsin technical college for an in-state student is about $4,585, not including books, materials or other related fees, according to the Wisconsin Technical College System website. By comparison, in-state tuition at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is $12,166 for the 2025-26 school year, according to the Universities of Wisconsin website.
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one.
Advocates are frustrated that Wisconsin prisons have not created a program to allow mothers behind bars to keep their babies with them despite a court order. The Department of Corrections says it is making progress by housing women and babies together in the community. (Photo by Getty Images)
The Wisconsin Department of Corrections is making progress on creating a program allowing incarcerated mothers who meet certain requirements to keep physical custody of their babies, the agency argued in court filings in early April.
The Wisconsin Examiner’s Criminal Justice Reporting Project shines a light on incarceration, law enforcement and criminal justice issues with support from the Public Welfare Foundation.
Over a year ago, Judge Stephen Ehlke required the Department of Corrections to begin considering women in state prisons for mother-young child programming without delay.
Lawyers for two formerly incarcerated women argued in February that there had been no meaningful progress in the 11 months since the judge ordered the department to establish the program. They argued that the court should impose sanctions, including a daily fine.
The department said it wants to have a program that would allow incarcerated women to live with their babies within prison walls, but that it is “currently impossible” to set up such a program in the existing prison system. The DOC cited a lack of sufficient funding from the state Legislature and overcrowding in women’s prisons.
In its court filings, the agency argued that it has complied with the order by pursuing a program that would involve housing incarcerated women in the community but with some of the same restrictions they would face in prison.
Lawyers for the women from the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and Quarles & Brady LLP haven’t filed a reply to the DOC yet. In an interview with the Examiner on April 10, Wisconsin ACLU Legal Director Ryan Cox said the DOC hasn’t complied with the court order.
The ACLU’s position is that the department intends to “hide behind the Legislature,” Cox said.
He said the court can fix the problem by fining the government “until it’s clear to the Legislature that they will be spending more money in sanctions than it would cost to just pass a bill to fix the problem overall.”
Cox said that the agency has said the criteria for its potential program is too restrictive for any person in DOC custody to currently qualify.
In its filings, DOC said it is aware of one woman who is likely to become eligible in May of this year, and that additional women could become eligible in the future.
In 2025, 14 mothers gave birth while in the custody of the Wisconsin Women’s Correctional System, DOC communications director Beth Hardtke said in an email to the Examiner.
The case hinges on a 1991law that requires the department to create a mother-young child care program that allows women in the correctional system to keep physical custody of their children while they participate. A woman may enter the program if the department approves and she is either pregnant or has a child less than 1 year old.
Nine states have prison nursery programs, and others are considering or developing a program, Stateline reported in January.
Last year, Ehlke agreed with the plaintiffs that incarcerated women had to be considered. He rejected the Department of Corrections’ argument that the agency’s existing program for mothers on probation, parole or extended supervision was enough to satisfy the law.
Plaintiffs Alyssa Puphal and Natasha Curtin-Weber were incarcerated women who wanted to participate, according to the initial complaint filed in June 2024. Both women have since been released from prison.
DOC pursuing ‘creative solution’
No DOC prisons can support housing infants, and the agency’s budget doesn’t have extra money to build a new facility for the program, the DOC argued.
The agency said it likely could have created a “more robust” mother-young child program for prisoners if it had the necessary funding, and should not be held in contempt because any shortcoming on its part was not intentional.
The DOC said it “would have been in no one’s best interest for Corrections to have simply started housing infants in prisons that were not equipped to safely house them.”
The department said it is actively working with Meta House, a nonprofit that helps women recover from addiction. Meta House is one of the facilities that currently houses the DOC’s mother-young child program for women on correctional supervision in the community, the DOC said, and the department is working with Meta House to enable it to house eligible incarcerated people.
In April 3 court filings, Daniel Cromwell, an assistant administrator for adult prisons for the DOC, said that a draft policy regarding the program is expected to become final and effective within a few weeks. After the policy is final, the final contract with Meta House will go through a DOC process for approval and signature, according to the department.
ACLU: Too many women left out
While Cox thinks women should have to meet some requirements to participate, he thinks the agency’s criteria are too restrictive.
In its court filings, the department said that its plan with Meta House also relies on another state law: Wisconsin statute 301.046. An incarcerated woman would have to meet the criteria for that law and the mother-child law to participate.
The law allows prisoners who meet certain requirements to be confined where they live or in other places in the community assigned by the department, the DOC said.
The law requires the department to keep track of these incarcerated people by electronic monitoring or keeping them in supervised places. Laws that apply to incarcerated people in other correctional institutions still apply to them. The DOC can allow them to leave confinement for activities like employment and education, but it’s unclear whether the agency will permit this.
The DOC said that women placed in the community under this statute are legally considered “prisoners,” and that in this way, the department would meet its responsibility to provide a mother-child program to prisoners.
Cox said that “we’re still trying to understand”the specifics of the criteria for the community confinement law that the DOC laid out in its court filings, but he contends that it is overly restrictive and doesn’t obey the court order.
If the program was in one of its women’s prisons or a new facility built for that purpose, the agency might not have included this criteria. However, the department argued that it doesn’t have the resources needed for that.
Cox also said that the department is trying to confuse the question of who is currently a prisoner, and that the goal of the women’s lawsuit and the court’s order is to provide a program to women who are currently incarcerated.
A drafted DOC policyincludes a list of requirements incarcerated women would need to meet.Women convicted of offenses such as homicide or a crime against a child, or who are not classified as minimum custody or minimum community custody, would not qualify.
Other requirements involve each woman’s behavior while in prison and jail and whether she has actively engaged in parenting classes. Child welfare must have approved or coordinated a safe reunification between the mother and the child, and the woman must have a stable housing and child care plan in place, among other requirements.
Juli Bliefnick of FREE, an advocacy group focused on the justice system’s impact on women, expressed concern about what criteria the DOC will require women to meet. She said that historically, the department’s discretion limits access to programs, rather than expanding access.
“And the human cost of excluding mothers and babies from this opportunity to form those critical bonds cannot be understated,” Bliefnick said in a message to the Examiner.
Request for sanctions
Lawyers for the women requested sanctions, including a daily fine that would accumulate over time. They asked for the money from the fine to be set aside for the mother-child program.
The DOC argued that it isn’t in contempt of the court order, that Wisconsin law does not allow for money from such a fine to be set aside for that purpose and that the plaintiffs haven’t provided necessary evidence for the court to hold a hearing on contempt.
DOC’s lack of funding
Wisconsin’s budget includes $198,000 per year for the mother-child program. That’s not enough to construct a new building, and the DOC budget lacks money that could be used to do so, the agency argued.
According to the DOC, the state Legislature has not provided additional funding despite proposals in the 2025-2027 budget process.
Joint Finance Committee co-chairs Rep. Mark Born (R-Beaver Dam) and Sen. Howard Marklein (R-Spring Green), as well as several of the other Republican members of the committee, did not respond to requests for comment from the Examiner.
The DOC said it’s still seeking legislative support for more money but has no “imminent” way to get the money needed to construct a new building to house a mother-child program.
According to the department’s filings, the $198,000 per year is used by its Maternal and Infant Program, the department’s program for women on supervision. In addition, the department traditionally spends another $400,000 to $500,000 per year on that program.
The Maternal and Infant Program reportedly offers ten single-occupancy rooms available for women on supervision to live with their babies. The department said it contracts with ARC Community Services, Inc. to administer the program.
Women take part in the program for approximately six months at a time, the department said. In 2024, about 25 women were referred for the program, with 11 admitted and six successfully completing the program.
‘A critical step’
The advocacy group FREE said it is working with partners like the Ostara Initiative to develop community-based alternatives that meet the requirements of statute while advancing their goal of ending the immediate separation of newborns and incarcerated mothers.
“This is a critical step toward eliminating jail and prison births in our state, and we invite community members to join us in this work,” FREE said.
After nearly 30 years in prison, Derek Williams appreciates the progress he’s made in his pursuit of parole.
NNS previously reported that Williams’ 180-year sentence for a string of armed robberies was reduced after he protected a correctional officer during a stabbing.
The sentence reduction made him eligible for parole decades earlier than he would have been otherwise.
He said he’s been doing all he can to go from parole eligibility to freedom.
Right now, he’s housed at the Sturtevant Transitional Facility, a minimum-security prison.
Five days a week, he is transported to the Racine Correctional Institution for his job in the gatehouse.
“I walk around freely,” Williams said. “I see every staff member and every visitor that comes through.”
But what he wants is work release, something fundamentally different.
Williams, 51, said he has always understood that a key way to demonstrate readiness for parole is doing work release – in which the Wisconsin Department of Corrections allows incarcerated people to leave a prison for a job in the community and return after their shift.
Williams said his pursuit of parole hit a major setback because his pursuit of work release has hit one.
In February, the Wisconsin Parole Commission deferred Williams’ parole for six months and withdrew its endorsement for work release, citing concerns that he was dishonest during his January parole hearing.
It is a setback driving Williams, his wife and other loved ones crazy.
“I’m literally being held in prison because the prison is not letting me out to do work release,” he said.
A Wisconsin Watch investigation found that work release opportunities in the state were limited and that prison officials weren’t tracking participation rates.
Accusation of dishonesty
The commission said Williams falsely claimed during his January hearing that at a previous hearing a commissioner had discussed initiating a pre-release investigation.
A pre-release investigation is conducted by correctional staff to verify housing, employment and public safety before parole is granted.
After reviewing the audio and transcript from the earlier hearing, the commission wrote that there was no mention of a pre-release investigation.
Williams’ “willingness to be dishonest during a parole review (and about another parole commissioner) heightens the commissioner’s stated reservations,” the Wisconsin Parole Commission said in its Feb. 2 decision.
Williams disputes this characterization, saying he was attempting to explain prior discussions, not mislead the panel or manipulate the parole process.
He also said he was not provided an opportunity to clarify his comments before the Wisconsin Parole Board made its decision.
‘Not an entitlement’
Despite the different claims about what happened, the effect on Williams’ prospects is clear.
Robert Miller is the warden of the Racine Correctional Institution, who oversees off-site authorizations for people housed at Sturtevant. Miller told Rikki Williams in an email that because the Parole Commission no longer endorses work release, her husband’s anticipated release date could be “significantly in the future.”
Rikki Williams, the wife of Derek Williams, was told in an email that her husband’s release date could be delayed. (Jonathan Aguilar / Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service / CatchLight Local)
Beth Hardtke, director of communications for the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, said in an email that work release decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
“Work release placement decisions and approvals may vary based on the individual and the types of conviction(s),” Hardtke said. “The individual’s conduct and work history … may be considered.”
In its decision, the Wisconsin Parole Commission also cited Williams’ criminal history and public safety concerns but did not elaborate on them.
A spokesperson for the commission previously told NNS that “a parole grant is not an entitlement.”
For now, Williams remains in the gatehouse.
Jonathan Aguilar is a visual journalist at Milwaukee Neighborhood News Service who is supported through a partnership between CatchLight Local and Report for America.
Login
