Court would matter if Trump respected the law
In its decision late Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court in an unsigned, unanimous opinion politely informed the Trump administration it must “facilitate” the release of a man it spirited off to a Salvadoran gulag last month due to its own “administrative error” (Washington Post):
A district court judge had ordered Kilmar Abrego García to be brought back to the United States by Monday night, but Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued a brief pause hours before the deadline, allowing the justices time to weigh a government motion to block the order.
In its brief order Thursday evening, the high court said the judge “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”
But not so fast. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis’s initial order instructed the Triump administration to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego García’s return to the U.S. SCOTUS sent the case back to the lower court to expand on what it meant by “effectuate.”
The Court wrote:
The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.
That is, another co-equal branch of our government mustn’t overstep its authority, something with which the Trump administration is thoroughly familiar. “Abrego García, a Salvadoran immigrant who is married to a U.S. citizen, was deported on March 15 despite a court ruling forbidding it,” the Post explains.
As a lame duck in 2020, Trump brought and lost dozens of lawsuits challenging his election loss to Joe Biden. Now with his sycophants installed in every cranny of the Executive Branch, with Trump-appointed judges throughout the federal judiciary, and with GOP control of both branches of Congress, Trump feels entitled to ignore adversarial rulings. In essence, “Make me.” Or “facilitate this.”
After instructing the lower court to give the Executive “due regard” in foreign affairs, SCOTUS suggested that the Trump administration “be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”
Oh, we’re sharing now, are we, mugged Rachel Maddow on her show. “What is this, group therapy?” Maddow asked. “Do you feel you can share?” Is this a court order or not? Or a by-your-leave from the highest court in the land? Mustn’t make daddy angry?
Nowhere in its ruling does the SCOTUS ruling use the word “return” regarding Abrego García, notes Chris Geidner at Law Dork, adding, “Of the 13 judges — including seven appointed by Republican presidents — to look at the Trump administration’s actions here, none have sided with the administration.”
Does anyone think he or his lackeys care?
Geidner updates with this late news:
[UPDATE, 10:50 p.m.: Judge Paula Xinis issued an order following Thursday night’s Supreme Court ruling, ordering the government to “take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible” and scheduling a status conference in the case for 1 p.m. Friday.
Additionally, Xinis ordered the Justice Department to file a declaration by 9:30 a.m. Friday detailing where Abrego Garcia is and what steps have been and will be taken to facilitate his return.]
Justice Sonia Sotamayor laid out her rather tart thoughts on the matter, and called bullshit on the Trump administration’s claims that Abrego Garcia’s fate now is out of its hands. Watch your backs. This is where Trump is haeding if he isn’t stopped:
The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008). The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8). That view refutes itself.
In lieu of divine intervention, a bit of karmic comeuppance for this nasty little administration would be welcome about now.
* * * * *
Have you fought autocracy today?
National Day of Action, Saturday, April 19 (Details pending)
The Resistance Lab
Choose Democracy
Indivisible: A Guide to Democracy on the Brink
You Have Power
Chop Wood, Carry Water
Thirty lonely but beautiful actions
Attending a Protest Surveillance Self-Defense