WASHINGTON – Attorneys for a man facing federal charges have accused U.S. prosecutors of an extraordinary act of coercion, alleging the government is threatening to deport their client to Uganda—a country with which he has no connection—unless he accepts a guilty plea.

The explosive claim, detailed in a motion filed Saturday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, centers on the case of Jose Abrego Garcia. His legal team argues that the threat constitutes a violation of his constitutional right to a fair trial and amounts to "prosecutorial misconduct of the highest order."

This case brings to the forefront a contentious new phase of U.S. immigration policy and its intersection with the criminal justice system, sparking alarm among civil rights advocates and legal experts.

The Coercion Allegation

According to the court filing, federal prosecutors presented Mr. Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, with a standard plea agreement for the narcotics-related charges he faces. When his defense team indicated their intention to reject the offer and proceed to trial, they were allegedly informed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had initiated proceedings for his removal to Uganda.

"The choice presented to Mr. Abrego Garcia is not a choice at all," his attorney, Maria Sanchez, wrote in the motion. "It is a coercive threat: plead guilty to a crime you maintain you did not commit, or be exiled to a foreign continent where you have no family, no resources, and no understanding of the language or culture."

The defense argues that the timing of the deportation notice, immediately following their rejection of the plea deal, is not coincidental. They are asking the judge to dismiss the indictment or, at a minimum, to bar the government from using the threat of deportation as leverage in plea negotiations.

Government Response and a Controversial Policy

The Department of Justice has not issued a formal public response to the motion. However, in similar cases, the government has maintained that criminal prosecution and immigration enforcement are separate legal processes operating on parallel tracks. A spokesperson for the DOJ declined to comment on the pending litigation but stated that the department "is committed to upholding the law and ensuring due process for all individuals."

The threat of removal to Uganda is particularly unusual and points to the recent expansion of "safe third country" agreements. These controversial pacts allow the U.S. to deport asylum seekers and other undocumented immigrants to nations with which they have no ties, under the premise that those countries can process their claims or offer them protection.

While few details of the U.S.-Uganda agreement have been made public, it appears to mirror similar policies enacted by other Western nations, which critics condemn as an abdication of humanitarian responsibilities.

Due Process and Human Rights at Stake

Legal experts and human rights organizations have voiced grave concerns over the implications of the alleged tactic. Prof. David L. Franklin, an expert in constitutional law at Georgetown University, called the strategy "deeply troubling."

"The plea-bargaining system already contains an immense power imbalance," Franklin explained. "Introducing the threat of deportation to a random, unfamiliar country weaponizes the immigration system against the justice system. It effectively punishes a defendant for exercising their constitutional right to a trial."

Advocacy groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have warned that such practices could set a dangerous precedent, disproportionately affecting non-citizen defendants regardless of their guilt or innocence. The core of the issue, they argue, is whether the justice system can remain fair when prosecutors can wield the life-altering threat of exile.

The court is expected to hear arguments on the defense motion in the coming weeks. The judge's ruling could have significant ramifications for how immigration enforcement is used in federal criminal cases moving forward, potentially defining the legal boundaries of prosecutorial power in a new era of global migrant displacement.