[U: From The Opinion] Now, Abrego’s Likely Dismissal Hearing Will Be Jan. 28, 2026… In Nashville: USDC Judge Crenshaw

The Noemites are going to get bounced out of court. He has cancelled the "trial" date. That is. . . telling.

And I'll laugh about it. Yes, Abrego will be free:

. . .ORDER:

Before the Court is the government's Motion to Quash Defendant Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia's ("Abrego") subpoenas for Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, Acting Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General James McHenry, and Associate Deputy Attorney General Aakash Singh to testify at the evidentiary hearing on the government's motivations for charging Abrego. (Doc. No. [181]; see Doc. No. 217-1).

For the reasons set forth in this Order, the government's Motion (Doc. No. [181]) is RESERVED pending the evidentiary hearing on whether the government can rebut Abrego's prima facie showing of a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness. The trial scheduled for January 27, 2026, is CANCELLED.

[UPDATED -- From Judge Crenshaw's reasoned opinion:] . . .Because Abrego has already affirmatively satisfied the threshold question of whether he is entitled to a presumption that his prosecution is vindictive, his subpoenas of Blanche, McHenry, and Singh serve to support the third step of the vindictive prosecution inquiry, i.e., whether he can establish pretext and actual vindictiveness. (See Doc. No. 240 at 1). But, as Abrego emphasizes, to get there requires the government to successfully rebut the vindictiveness presumption Abrego is entitled to. (See Doc. No. 138 at 15); see also Bragan, 249 F.3d at 482; Zakhari, 85 F.4th at 379. According to Abrego, the Government has already shown that it cannot do so, given what Abrego asserts to be troves of evidence in the record indicating that his prosecution is actually vindictive. (See Doc. No. 275 at 11–15). . . .

Considering this landscape, and Abrego’s insistence that the current record alone warrants dismissal in his favor, whether the Court needs to hear testimony from Blanche, McHenry, and Singh, is questionable. Still, for the sake of thoroughness and to make sure that all parties are fully heard, the Court finds it prudent to proceed with an evidentiary hearing on Abrego’s Motion (Doc. No. 104). In doing so, it will limit the hearing to only the second step of the prosecutorial explanations for Abrego’s prosecution that rebuts the presumption of vindictiveness. LaDeau, 734 F.3d at 566. If the government can rebut that showing, the Court will revisit the government’s Motion to Quash (Doc. No. 181), as the burden will again shift back to Abrego to establish that the government’s rationale for prosecuting him is pretextual and that his prosecution is actually vindictive. See Bragan, 249 F.3d at 482. This shift may make the appropriateness of Abrego’s subpoenas of Blanche, McHenry, and Singh a pertinent inquiry. If the government fails to carry its burden at the evidentiary hearing, however, the Court need not resolve the government’s Motion (Doc. No. 181) on the merits. . . [And Abrego's prosecution will be immediately dismissed. End update.]

The evidentiary hearing will occur at 9:00 a.m. on Wednesday, January 28, 2026.

Signed by District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 12/23/2025. . . .

So now I will arrive on the evening of January 27, 2026 -- and will live blog the likely two days of hearings, starting at 9 AM on the 28^th. Excellent -- onward, resolutely. Enjoy the holiday now. . . smile.

नमस्ते