A federal judge ruled this week that Kilmar Abrego Garcia cannot be re-detained by immigration authorities because the statutory 90-day removal period has expired and the government lacks a realistic path to deport him. The decision ends, at least for now, a prolonged legal effort to remove a man whose case has consumed extraordinary federal time and resources.

Garcia entered the United States illegally as a teenager and later lived in Maryland. In 2019, an immigration judge determined that he could not be deported to El Salvador because he faced credible danger from gang violence there. Despite that protection, his immigration status remained unlawful. He was later charged in Tennessee with human smuggling, adding a criminal dimension to an already complicated case.

Last year, Garcia was deported before being returned to the United States. The Department of Homeland Security then attempted to deport him again, reportedly exploring removal options to several African countries. That second effort has now collapsed under judicial scrutiny. The court made clear that immigration detention cannot continue indefinitely when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.

None of these facts makes Garcia sympathetic. Entering the country illegally violates federal law. Human smuggling allegations are even more serious. But the broader policy question is not whether Garcia is admirable or an innocent “Maryland dad,” as The New York Times previously described him. The real question is whether dedicating substantial federal resources to a single, highly litigated deportation battle advances the stated goal of large-scale immigration enforcement.

The Trump administration has emphasized mass deportations and border control as central policy priorities. Achieving those objectives requires scale, efficiency, and legal sustainability. Immigration courts already face massive backlogs. Federal detention space is limited. Enforcement agencies operate under budgetary constraints. In that environment, strategic allocation of resources is essential.

Garcia’s case required an extraordinary amount of taxpayer funding. Taxpayers covered the cost of federal prosecutors and, through court-appointed counsel, his defense attorneys. They paid for the immigration officers who carried out the deportation, the transportation costs associated with removing him, and the additional expenses required to return and process him again. They financed the full scope of legal proceedings, including hearings, filings, and administrative reviews, as well as the cost of detention. In effect, the public paid for every stage of the process — from prosecution to deportation to renewed litigation — twice.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of individuals with final orders of removal remain in the country. Many of those cases involve no complex diplomatic barriers or contested country-of-origin protections.

Immigration law provides broad authority to detain and remove individuals who are unlawfully present, especially those accused or convicted of crimes. At the same time, statutory limits exist. The Supreme Court has held that immigration detention cannot become indefinite when deportation is not reasonably foreseeable. When the government pushes against those limits, courts intervene.

In reality, the Garcia case has become symbolic. For Democrats, it represents federal overreach. For supporters of aggressive deportation policy, it has become a test case. That symbolism, however, has distorted priorities. Immigration enforcement is not strengthened by turning one contested case into a national spectacle.

Garcia is one individual in a system involving millions. His case does not determine whether immigration law is enforced nationwide. Devoting disproportionate attention to his deportation has not meaningfully advanced broader enforcement objectives.

If policymakers are serious about restoring credibility to the immigration system, they must focus on scalable solutions. Immigration enforcement succeeds through consistent application of the law across thousands of cases, not through protracted battles over one legally complicated removal. Strategy, not spectacle, will determine whether immigration policy achieves its stated goals.