President Trump’s plans to use the Justice Department to seek revenge against his perceived enemies may have just hit a major roadblock. Earlier this month, Memphis federal district court judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. issued an opinion in the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia in response to a motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution. 

The judge found “that the totality of events” surrounding the bringing of the Abrego indictment “creates a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that there is a ‘realistic likelihood of vindictiveness,’” entitling him to discovery and an evidentiary hearing before his motion is decided.

This decision has wide-ranging ramifications. It is likely the death knell of the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), as well as other perceived enemies whom Trump has threatened for prosecution solely for political revenge. Trump’s enemies list includes Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Abrego is the Salvadoran immigrant the government mistakenly sent to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador. After his lawyers obtained an injunction from the Supreme Court to facilitate his return to the U.S., the government relentlessly went after him, indicting him on human trafficking charges based on a traffic stop in November 2022. 

Abrego contended that his prosecution was in retaliation for exercising his constitutional and statutory rights to sue the government. His lawsuit challenged his deportation to El Salvador through a federal civil action in federal district court in Maryland. 

The court based its findings, in part, on the stunning admission of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who told Fox News that the government had started looking into Abrego after a Maryland judge raised questions about the government’s case and “found that it ‘had no right to deport him,’” and was “doing something wrong.”  

Additionally, the court found that “the timing of Abrego’s indictment” supports his assertion that the executive branch “may have induced” the U.S. attorney “to criminally charge Abrego in retaliation for his Maryland lawsuit” and for successfully obtaining an injunction from the Supreme Court directing the government to facilitate his return to the U.S. from El Salvador. 

The court found that “only days after the Supreme Court’s decision,” the government “reopened its investigation into Abrego” and “ten days after that,” “Abrego was indicted.” It also relied on the “years-long delay” between the traffic stop and the indictment. The “903 days” was notably longer than “all of the criminal cases in the Sixth Circuit involving a traffic stop” over a 15-year period. 

The significant outcome of this decision is that Abrego is now entitled to take discovery and present that evidence at a public hearing. The discovery ordered by the court will be focused on what motivated the “actual decisionmakers” who directed and approved his indictment. 

Abrego can depose the Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Schrader, who resigned on the day the grand jury returned the indictment, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and others in the Justice Department and the Memphis U.S. Attorney’s Office who have knowledge of the reasons for filing the indictment. 

He can also subpoena documents relating to the decision to prosecute him. This highly unusual opportunity for Abrego to pull back the curtain in a public hearing is likely to be highly embarrassing to the Justice Department and the White House. 

There is a direct line from Crenshaw’s opinion to the Comey and James indictments, which are also vindictive prosecutions. Exhibit A will be Trump’s Sept. 20 Truth Social post asking Bondi “not to delay any longer” against Comey, Schiff and James. There is also a litany of Trump statements over the years, designating Comey and James as two of his chief political enemies. 

Those statements, coupled with the events leading up to the Comey and James indictments, reek of vindictiveness. When Trump’s handpicked U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Seibert, and others in the office refused to seek an indictment against Comey and James, Trump forced him out.

To ensure that Comey and James would be indicted, Trump appointed a new U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan, who blindly followed Trump’s orders to indict. Halligan, an insurance lawyer, was never a prosecutor, has no understanding of federal criminal law and is clueless about how to formulate federal criminal charges. 

Based on the judge’s reasoning, Comey and James should be able to pursue a highly aggressive defense and take testimony from all those who participated in or are knowledgeable about the bogus decision to indict them, subpoena relevant documents and present the results in a public hearing. 

The ultimate outcome of these hearings is not just the dismissal of unfounded indictments ordered by Trump for vindictive political retribution. For the lawyers who take part in Trump’s revenge tour, the consequences could be quite severe — induction into the Rudy Giuliani hall of shame for disbarred former lawyers who did Trump’s illegal bidding. 

Nick Akerman, a former assistant special Watergate prosecutor and a former assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, is an attorney in New York City.

, 2025-10-12 13:00:00, , TheHill.com Just In, %%https://thehill.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/03/cropped-favicon-512px-1.png?w=32, https://thehill.com/homenews/feed/, Nick Akerman, opinion contributor