The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Trump Takes Dangerous Steps Towards Defying Court Orders in Garcia Abrego Case
The Supreme Court ruled they administration must "facilitate" the return of an illegally deported migrant imprisoned in El Salvador at its behest. They have responded by doing virtually nothing to comply.

When the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration must "facilitate" the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant illegally deported to imprisonment in El Salvador, I noted it was an important victory for immigrant rights, but also warned the administration might try to weasel its way out of compliance by applying a very narrow definition of "facilitate" that licenses near-total inaction. Sadly, this is exactly what happened.
When the case was remanded back to the district court, Judge Paula Xinis issued an order instructing the defendants to "take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible." The government indefensibly interpreted this as merely requiring it to remove "domestic" obstacles to his return, making no effort to get the Salvadoran government to release him from prison. That makes no sense in a context where the Salvadorans had imprisoned Abrego Garcia at the behest of the US, and the Trump Administration could easily secure his release simply by demanding it. As conservative legal commentator Ed Whelan puts it: "The administration is clearly acting in bad faith… The Supreme Court and the district court have properly given it the freedom to select the means by which it will undertake to ensure Abrego Garcia's return. The administration is abusing that freedom by doing basically nothing."
The Administration coupled this bad-faith failure to follow the Supreme Court's and district court's orders with unsubstantiated claims that Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS 13 drug gang. They have no evidence for that. And if they did, the proper course of action is to charge him with it in court, rather than deportation and imprisonment without due process.
Judge Xinis appears to agree with Whelan's assessment. In an order issued today, she chastizes the the Administration for doing "nothing" to bring Abrego Garcia back to the US and rejects the assumption they need only remove "domestic" impediments:
Defendants… remain obligated, at a minimum, to take the steps available to them toward aiding, assisting, or making easier Abrego Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador and resuming his status quo ante. But the record reflects that Defendants have done nothing at all. Instead, the Defendants obliquely suggest that "facilitate" is limited to "taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien's ability to return here…." The fallacy in the Defendants' argument is twofold. First, in the "immigration context,….." facilitating return of those wrongly deported can and has included more extensive governmental efforts, endorsed in prior precedent and DHS publications. Thus, the Court cannot credit that "facilitating" the ordered relief is as limited as Defendants suggest.
Second, and more fundamentally, Defendants appear to have done nothing to aid in Abrego Garcia's release from custody and return to the United States to "ensure that his case is handled as it would have been" but for Defendants' wrongful expulsion of him. Abrego Garcia, 604 U.S.— , slip op. at 2 [citing Supr. Thus, Defendants' attempt to skirt this issue by redefining "facilitate" runs contrary to law and logic.
Judge Xinis goes on to order extensive expedited discovery regarding the defendants' conduct, to determine more fully what the the government has done and could do to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release. We shall see whether the defendants' compliance is as flawed as it has been with previous judicial orders. If they have not yet quite openly refused to follow judicial orders, they certainly have been trying to circumvent them in bad faith.
I think Judge Xinis should have ordered still stronger measures against the defendants, such as requiring them to formally demand Abrego Garcia's release from Salvadoran custody under threat of termination of the agreement under which the Salvadoran regime imprisons US deportees for money. The entire arrangement is an unconstitutional violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment (the deportees are imprisoned without ever having any opportunity to defend themselves in court). Maintaining it is therefore not a legitimate foreign policy interest within the prerogrative of the executive branch.
Much is at stake in this case. If the Administration is able to get away with circumventing or defying court orders, it would severely undermine all constitutional constraints on government power, including those that protect US citizens. And as prominent conservative Judge Harvie Wilkinson noted in his opinion in the Fourth Circuit ruling in this case, it is extremely dangerous if the government can deport people to imprisonment in a foreign state without any due process or any meaningful obligation to return them:
The facts of this case thus present the potential for a disturbing loophole: namely that the government could whisk individuals to foreign prisons in violation of court orders and then contend, invoking its Article II powers, that it is no longer their custodian, and there is nothing that can be done. It takes no small amount of imagination to understand that this is a path of perfect lawlessness, one that courts cannot condone.
I would add that this danger isn't limited to recent immigrants. It applies to US citizens, as well. The threat to US citizens' rights is no longer just theoretical, since the president is openly considering the possibility of deporting and imprisoning US citizens in El Salvador.
This slippery slope must be stopped before we go any further down it. Courts must do their part. And the rest of us must give them strong political support in doing so. That can help deter the administration from further rampant illegality.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Save your breath, Somin. These people are so far down the rabbit hole with hate and fear, laws mean nothing
The Court said facilitate and Trump is ready to facilitate the return of the illegal alien suspected gangbanger who shouldn’t be here in the first place, with the term facilitate being adhered to in a commonly accepted sense of the word. Nowhere in the order do they say Trump has to use Mr. Somins personal definition of facilitate for this case.
Its now up to Bukale not Trump and I suspect he would prefer not to ship back one of his own citizens. So the US would have to spend significant political capital and possibly cause a major diplomatic row to get this one person back costing resources that would be obviously ridiculous in any other case of a nation trying to claw back any other noncitizen, short of a major criminal let alone someone who shouldn’t have been here.
The Dems and Mr Somin are always whining about Trump stomping around and pissing off allies and suddenly they want to piss off another?
Or yours either.
“facilitate” is not an exacting term.
Reminiscent of “all deliberate speed” in the school desgregation cases.
Perhaps, but the court did not use “effectuate.” Offering bus fare back to the US whenever he can get to a bus terminal would be facilitating.
Trump is free to use my definition or spend significant political capital and go against his goals to use Mr Somins with the probable result being that the opposition instead of being grateful will just use the opportunity to taunt him for caving. Want to bet on which one he will go for?
Of course Trump is trying to use your definition (duh). But, he won’t be free to do so if SCOTUS says otherwise.
If SCOTUS wishes to violate the Logan Act and engage in foreign diplomacy on their own, there could be issues.
Courts have drastically overstepped their power. They need to be cut back. A lot.
The Supreme Court said that the district court’s order “properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador”.
What do yin think the government has done that discharges that obligation?
What obligation? Is there anything the government can do to discharge the obligation, that falls within the court’s power to order the government to do? Who is supposed to decide whether a particular course of action is within the judge’s power? Trump?
I mean, Pam Bondi has said that the US would send a plane to pick the guy up if there were the opportunity. That make his release easier. Does that discharge the obligation?
Well, the Supreme Court said it was proper to order the government to facilitate his release, so that suggests that the government should do something. The Supreme Court also said they should explain what they’ve done, and they haven’t.
Sending a plane to pick up the guy should there be an opportunity would clearly facilitate his release.
How about asking Bukale to let him out, so we can put him on that plane? There is no excuse, legal or moral, not to make that request, when we’re the ones who shipped him off, tried and convicted by no one, for a life sentence in a third world gulag. If you’re as satisfied as Trump is to just let him rot, you’re as grotesque and loathsome as Trump is.
The moral reason is that the illegal snuck in and has no right to be here in the first place. His supposed innocence of gangbanging does not grant him a free lifetime pass to the US. The US owed him nothing before he snuck him and it owes him nothing after he was caught in 2019 and pulled that protection order unless you believe rulebreakers should be treated preferentially to lawabiding.
The gangs he was ‘afraid’ of have been decimated under bukale, he was not given any protection order against the lawful government of his country. So back he should go.
If his army of admirers want to hash out the question of his guilt or innocence they should do it over there where he belongs. It might go alot better than wasting all these resources turning it into an political question bukale will be compelled to oppose.
WGAF? Trump commits much more serious crimes every day of the week and twice on Sunday, and it doesn’t phase you in the least. You don’t care about the law.
omg, you’re so right!
OPEN BORDERS FOR EVERYONE!!!! I’m just like Ilya now! Because Trump commits more serious laws than these pure, innocent victims! OPEN BORDERS FOR EVERYONE!!!
In fact, let everyone out of jail whose committed less serious laws than what President Trump commits LITERALLY EVERY SINGLE DAY!!!!!
Great comment. David Notimportant.
David will never give an example of these supposed crimes. Guy is truly deranged. WGAF that the deportee is a definite criminal (crossed illegally into the US) and that an immigration judge (and immigration appeals judge) found credible evidence of being a member of a notorious criminal gang? Way to say the quiet part out loud, David. Good luck ever winning an election with that platform.
Garcia had also been determined to have been a MS-13 gang member by the relevant (Immigration) court.
Bruce, the accusations in prior immigration hearings of Kilmar Abrego García’s MS-13 affiliation were based on strikingly flimsy evidence, which a later court found non-credible:
https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/abrego-garcia-and-ms-13–what-do-we-know
The current issue is that, in violation of relevant constitutional rights, he was given no due process, no chance to rebut any claims of gang affiliation before his removal. The cure for that is, first, return to a status quo ante—the only thing this Somin post is about—and then to provide Abrego García with the constitutional due process, as is his, your, and my right.
That means the government must make their case in court to overturn the currently applicable court judgement, with both sides presenting their verifiable support into evidence and testimony under oath subject to cross-examination. If the government can make a convincing case—which you seem so certain they can— they can legally deport him to El Salvador.
I’m satisfied with that. Why aren’t you? Because the government’s current argument about his rights, applies just as well to yours and mine.
What all of this boils down to is that from 1924-1965, the border was basically closed. In 1965, America was mostly white, about 10% black, and a sprinkling of others. Americans were largely happy with it that way.
Nobody asked for tens of millions of non-white peasants from alien cultures to be imported, and after years of expressing displeasure, the people were lied to. I’m thinking of the mid 80s Reagan signed law that didn’t uphold the bargain to get the border under control.
Now, we have a president who is finally removing large numbers of non-white peasants who don’t belong here.
That’s why so many Americans don’t care about Abrego. He had a menial job and was raising a special needs child. He is objectively a bad addition to America, whether or not he’s been convicted of any violent crime.
I could not care less about color or race. For me it’s the alien culture aspect. Anyone can be American so long as the are willing and able to assimilate into the dominant culture. For that to occur people have to be admitted at a rate where the system and culture aren’t completely overwhelmed. My grandfather from Tuscany, and my ex from Moscow had so thoroughly incorporated themselves in the US way of things both considered their birth lands foreign countries. My wife, who was born in London and spent her childhood in the UK goes on rants about how “crazy” they are over there.
I don’t care if you come from the Amazon jungle or the Kalahari Desert or the Mekong Delta, assuming you entered legally, learned the language, are gainfully and legally employed, I’ll be just as happy and honored to join you at the backyard BBQ and share a beer as the Poles down the street or the Germans next door.
You want to sneak in illegally, hide somewhere along with all the other illegals, engage in crime, and refuse to assimilate and damage the community, I don’t really care what means it takes to remove you from the country or where you are sent back to.
I agree with that in the abstract. The problem is, race and religion are an element of how easily someone can assimilate. It’s easier for your white Christian Brit to assimilate into American culture than an indigenous Mayan from Guatemala or a Somalia Muslim.
The supposed reason to release him from prison, is that he hasn’t been convicted of any crime. Do you think that being in the US illegally should result in a life sentence of imprisonment without due process?
I could imagine a ruling where they determine that his protected status is revoked based on the relative safety of El Salvador, and the deported him to freedom in El Salvador. Fine. Maybe he can apply for a permanent resident visa via marriage then. That’s not what they did. They sent him to a prison in El Salvador without trial in direct violation of core principles of the rule of law.
He’s also an adjudicated MS-13 gang member adjudicated too dangerous to be allowed out on the streets of the US. Under Biden, it was determined too dangerous to deport him back home, and no other country wanted MS-13 gang members. So, here he sat. Then the government in El Salvador changed, and Trump became President, so he could now be deported back home.
False. Not only was there no such “adjudication,” but the Trump administration did allow him on the streets of the U.S., for years, with no trouble.
No court has adjudicated that. The administration (sp Stephen Miller) has asserted he is a member of MS-13, but has offered no evidence to support that assertion. Also, he was not in the US illegally, having been granted temporary protected status by an immigration judge.
No, that part’s not correct. He had no protected status; the only thing the immigration judge granted him was withholding of deportation to El Salvador. To the extent that the U.S. didn’t have anywhere else to send him, then he could stay here, but that was limbo, not a legal status.
Ah, thank you for the correction David…flagrantly displaying my IANAL status. So noted, and will not be repeated!
He has work permit and was legally employed, which I don’t think.you can get unless you have temporary protected status.
“How about asking Bukale to let him out, so we can put him on that plane?”
What if Trump doesn’t want to Bukale to let him out? The weird thing about this is that Trump has his own sphere of power that is out of reach of the courts. He can probably actively impede the release in ways that are unreachable by the courts, such as by asking Bukale not to release him.
If so, the scotus needs to rule that it’s unconstitutional to send people to foreign prisons, period. If you can “accidentally” put someone in a foreign prison without due process and can’t get him out, or use it as a pretext to not get him out, then we don’t have due process rights anymore. They can do that with anyone, even us citizens.
The only way it should be legal to send someone to a foreign prison is if there are iron clad guarantees that they will be returned at a formal request. And even then maybe not.
There are lots of things that the government does that it can’t undo.
If we wrongfully deport someone, even not to a foreign prison, there’s no guarantee we can get him back.
If the government thinks it’s shooting a drone at a terrorist and kills a bunch of children, we can’t bring those children back to life.
And in those cases, it usually ends up paying compensation for the damages. The government can be sued in court for the harms. But in this case, it’s not to late, they can just let the guy out of prison. You can also stop doing the stuff that is causing harm. No more deportation flights.
It’s really up to Trump if he values having continued deportation flights more than he values keeping this one guy in prison.
Fundamentally there are only two end games here that are compatible with the rule of law:
A. Trump gets him released from custody in El Salvador
B. All deportations to foreign prisons are declared unconstitutional.
No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.
Why not?
Because David and only David knows the meaning of the word “facilitate.” Despite the fact that SCOTUS never defined it and probably never will. How dare you not agree with David’s preferred definition simply because David says so?
I think David Nieporent probably does know the meaning of the word “facilitate”. I would have thought that lots of other people did too, but that is looking less and less clear.
I disagree. I think that he is interpreting “facilitate” as closer to “effectuate” than common usage would suggest. AG Bondi asked for him back and offered to retrieve him. What more does she need to do? El Salvador is a sovereign country, he is one of their citizens, and they have him now. They have the moral right to keep him. Yes, the US could apply diplomatic pressure. That would be the Secretary of State, not the AG. Or militarily intervene, but that would be the Secretary of Defense, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State and the President, and not the AG.
SecState Rubio already made his opinion known about Garcia. He made it as simple as that = Garcia is repatriated and is El Salvador’s problem, not ours
Can you cite any source indicating that AG Bondi indeed asked for him back? I’ve not seen that anywhere.
The meaning of the word facilitate is to make easier.
Sending a plane makes his return easier. I suppose providing transportation to the plane from the prison would make it even easier. Maybe they could offer to go down and open the prison door. How much easier can it get?
I have seen the argument that because he is only being held in CECOT per US request; and el salvador is being paid to house our prisoners… then he is still in the constructive possession of the US despite being on foreign soil. Bukele himself stated they are being held at the US’s discretion.
El Salvador is not imprisoning him for crimes alleged, tried or sentenced in El Salvador. He left there at age 16. He has been in the US something like 14years. He is also isn’t serving time in prison for a sentence after being convicted of a US crime. There is an immigration removal order – with withholding from El Salvador – a removal order isn’t a life sentence. It’s not even criminal law per se. Most immigration proceedings are civil in nature. There are immigration related crimes; to be sure, but this guy isn’t charged with them.
They’re clearly in direct violation of the order at this point because Pam Bondi has stated on television that ‘This man is not coming back to the United States’. They have publicly stated that they are in fact not going to facilitate his return to the United States. I don’t know how it could be clearer that they are defying the Supreme Court.
We have indicated we will take him back of Bukale decides to release him. Ie we are facilitating a release in a similar way that a tunnel facilitates a car potentially moving through it. What more do you want us to do? Start a war against El Salvador flinging nukes and marching armies down to snatch one illegal suspected gangbanger back from his own home country?
To be clear, it’s your position that sending a plane to fly him back should he be released is facilitating his release?
Unless Trump says he doesn’t have to do that, in which case flying a plane there was NEVER part of “facilitation”. They’ll have to wait to get their next orders.
“To be clear, it’s your position that sending a plane to fly him back should he be released is facilitating his release?”
Given the person in question is a CITIZEN of ES held in ES — yes, that is the full extent of the doable.
Again, courts can send their interns on a daring flight into ES to remove him themselves, but that will go poorly.
So it’s your position that there’s nothing else the administration could do to facilitate the release?
Can do? No. They could carpet bomb the country. They could send 1M troops in conquer the country, much to the support of “libertarians”
Should do? Yes. They’ve already done more than they should have.
Well, Xinis appears to have defied scotus’ order to clarify her order with “deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”
She clarified her order to say that Defendants must take all available steps to facilitate his return, but there are many steps available to facilitate his return that are outside the scope of her power to order, due to the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.
So maybe Trump’s position is that there are things that he can do but they’re all outside of her power to order him to do.
But unless she orders something specific, there’s no way to resolve whether a particular course of action is within the scope of the President foreign policy domain.
She gave the administration all the deference it was due, and not one smidgen more.
And you have it backwards: it’s up to the administration, as with any litigant, to prove to the judge’s satisfaction that they have complied with her order.
With this? No. She is exceeding her authority. Ignore her hearings and move on.
She is not. And that’s a higher court’s call to make, not a litigant’s.
The President is obligated to defend the Constitution. If a court is overstepping their authority, the President is required to defy them.
“She gave the administration all the deference it was due…”
Really? She ordered him to take all available steps to facilitate his return. That would include offering El Salvador beneficial trade deals in exchange for his return, and other diplomatic incentives that are available, or even invading El Salvador.
Ordering those things is not showing deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.
It’s showing all the deference that was due.
You don’t think deference in the form of narrowing the scope of the order so that it’s clear that it doesn’t include invading El Salvador is due?
If you ignore the US paying for this particular individual’s detainment, sure. There were already people flown back from CECOT; 6female detainees that they wouldn’t accept and a Guatemalan. So it’s not impossible to think that the contract terms offer some flexibility to El Salvador of who to detain or not; as well as the US as to how long the people they do accept are to be held. Presumably, once the contract expires or is cancelled, the US will go and retrieve the people they sent there since the people in question are only being held there at the US’s request.
Again, JUDGES cannot order the President to engage in foreign policy of any sort.
You seem to be forgetting that.
To be clear, what’s your definition?
“it’s your position that sending a plane to fly him back should he be released is facilitating his release?”
It’s your position that it’s not?
Yes. If you’re a lawyer and your client is in prison, and you’re tasked with facilitating his release, do you think anyone would think you discharged that obligation by saying, “Well, I arranged for an uber to be waiting outside the prison if the prison chooses to let him go”?
Wait, sorry, that gives the administration too much credit. More like this: “Well, I’m willing to send an uber for him if the prison chooses to let him go.”
Would your client be INSIDE the US?
Small difference.
I don’t think it matters. A judge can legally order someone under their jurisdiction to do something in another country. For example, they could potentially order a parent to go and try to retrieve their children from overseas.
The MS-13 member is a citizen of El Salvador who is currently inside El Salvador.
Feel free to provide a hypothetical to deal with that.
Add into that — the executive has zero desire to actually get him and is going thru this dog and pony show simply to appease this moron lawyer in a robe.
“Yes. If you’re a lawyer and your client is in prison, and you’re tasked with facilitating his release, do you think anyone would think you discharged that obligation by saying, “Well, I arranged for an uber to be waiting outside the prison if the prison chooses to let him go”?
Wait, sorry, that gives the administration too much credit. More like this: “Well, I’m willing to send an uber for him if the prison chooses to let him go.””
If only you could comprehend that this gentleman is a citizen of the country which is detaining him, and that we have absolutely no jurisdiction over that country’s criminal justice system.
But as usual, you’re too busy with whataboutisms, straw men, and goalpost-moving.
If only you could comprehend that his citizenship is legally irrelevant to this discussion. If he were born and raised in Indiana, the issues here would be no different. You and Trump might pretend to care more if Garcia were a native-born U.S. WASP named Williams, but we would have exactly the same lack of jurisdiction over CECOT in that situation.
“If you’re a lawyer and your client is in prison, and you’re tasked with facilitating his release, do you think anyone would think you discharged that obligation by saying, “Well, I arranged for an uber to be waiting outside the prison if the prison chooses to let him go”?”
If I was a lawyer, I would understand such an order to mean provide him with legal representation, and argue for his release.
If I wasn’t a lawyer, I would be very unclear about what I was supposed to do. Am I supposed to send an Uber? Blow the warden? What?
Am I required to argue to the warden that releasing him would be a good thing even if I don’t believe that?
What would you do, if a judge ordered you to facilitate the release of a prisoner in El Salvador who you didn’t think should be released?
The U.S. is not Garcia’s lawyer.
I mean, that’s pretty obviously true, but so what? The point was to select an analogy where a person had a duty to act. Being the person’s lawyer is one such. Being under a court order to act would be another.
The President has no duty to engage in foreign policy because a judge ordered it.
Any more than a judge has a duty to issue a guilty verdict if the President feels the defendant is guilty.
If that is not facilitation, nothing.
If the deal is we can’t reverse a miscarriage of justice when we deport people into a foreign prison, then we shouldn’t be deporting people into foreign prisons period. We either uphold due process right or we don’t. If deporting people to foreign prisons means we cannot guarantee due process rights are upheld, then we shouldn’t be doing it. Do you believe in due process?
“What do yin think the government has done that discharges that obligation?”
They have a plan ready to pick him up if ES decides to release him. Bukele said he will not release his criminal citizen. Ergo, Trump abided by the asinine order.
Courts are beclowning themselves. They will gravely miss having credibility.
So it’s your position that making a plan for what to do if someone gets released is facilitating that release?
It is precisely that.
You might want to look up the definition of “facilitating”.
Now, if you wish to claim that courts can now run foreign policy, can Trump now demand that courts find certain verdicts? I mean, if we’re going to shit on separation of powers, let’s go all out.
Plus asking for him back. What else are you asking AG Bondi to do? I don’t see anything beyond applying diplomatic pressure or a military intervention, both of which are above her pay grade, as well as that of the judge. But, we are all open for your suggestion.
The man has not been convicted of any US or ES crime.
He has not been convicted of a crime in El Salvador, so why would Bukele not release him?
In addition, the Trump administration is a apparently still paying them to hold him at the US’s request.
We deport lots and lots of illegal aliens. How many deported illegal aliens have their individual case personally discussed by a POTUS, face to face, with the President of their country? That, by itself, is extraordinary; well beyond mere facilitation. POTUS Trump himself asked about Garcia, and President Bukele said NFW. Hell, it is on camera.
Really, what more can you reasonably ask for (as a Dist Ct judge)?
False. A reporter asked. And that’s not what Bukele said; what he said was that he wouldn’t smuggle Garcia into the U.S.
While the Salvadoran president was visiting Trump, he was asked about returning Garcia. The Salvadoran president said he wouldn’t be returning Garcia. What is Trump to do in the face of that refusal?
Demand that El Salvador show a little gratitude and pay us $500 billion ASAP for all we’ve done for the country.
I don’t understand the point of posts like this. It’s bad faith and you don’t believe a word of it. How can you be so chickenshit — even though not posting under your real name — to not just use the racial epithets that you clearly want to about Hispanic people, so much so that you’ll invent imaginary scenarios that you don’t even pretend to actually believe.
It would not cause any diplomatic row, would cost no imaginary political capital, would take no resources of any sort. You know that is utter bullshit in literally every respect.
Woah, guys, DN is on to something. The ONLY POSSIBLE REASON to not expect Trump to carry out this judge’s foreign policy preferences is because YOU ARE RACIST!!!!
If President Trump doesn’t personally invade El Salvador RIGHT NOW leading Seal Team Six (what’s left after Obama had them decimated), then he is DEFYING SCOTUS to it’s FACE!
They said “facilitate” and that means doing literally everything possible, domestic AND FOREIGN, up to and including personally invading El Salvador!
Yes, actually, though that’s not what I actually wrote. What I actually wrote is that the only possible reason to pretend that Trump couldn’t get the guy back with one phone call is because you are racist.
Nah, you were pretty clear. They nailed you dead to rights.
“How can you be so chickenshit — even though not posting under your real name — to not just use the racial epithets that you clearly want to about Hispanic people”
Your quote, son, in case you forgot or wish to ignore it.
You are such a lying disingenuous POS. Your post says that those who oppose you want to use racial epithets and accuses others of bad faith. Then you yourself act in bad faith when called out for it. The refuge of a scoundrel who can’t win an actual argument.
How retarded are you (and damikesc)? He agreed with you twice. Yes, he’s calling you racists, because you so obviously are.
Why? Why is wanting to send adjudicated violent gang members back to their native country racist? Because he is Hispanic and the gang he was adjudicated belonging to is Hispanic? That sounds racist on David’s (or your) part to me. Racism, to me, is having a double standard based on race. Now you have your white liberals moaning that gang membership and violence for brown people is just fine. They can’t help themselves, because they are brown (or black), and not white (or yellow). That’s racism to me.
I’ll use small words:
1. It is obviously false — you know it, I know it, Pam Bondi, Kristi Noem, Stephen Miller, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump know it, Judge Xinis knows it, JD Vance knows it, and everyone else in the Western Hemisphere knows it — to pretend that Donald Trump couldn’t get Bukele to return Garcia to the U.S. with one 30-second phone call, without using up any “political capital.”
2. Therefore, people who are claiming otherwise, like AmosArch above, are knowingly lying.
3. Why would they lie about such a thing? Even the Trump administration was forced to admit that they weren’t allowed to send Garcia to El Salvador.
Answer: because their attitude is, “I don’t care what happens to a Hispanic guy. He must be a gang member, even though nobody has ever presented any evidence of it; I just know Hispanic people are gang members.”
4. What do we call that? Well, you people probably call it “Tuesday,” but I call it racism.
#3 alternate answer – attitude is “I am all in for Trump, I must defend all his actions regardless of how stupid/reckless/lawless they are. I shall expend no mental energy considering whether his critics are right, as that might cause me to change my mind.”
The.
Judge.
Is.
Not.
Able.
To.
Dictate.
Foreign.
Policy.
At all.
You can decide that separation of powers do not matter. I do not agree. I did not vote for this useless clown in a robe.
Based on what evidence do you believe he is an adjudicated violent gang member? No US or ES court has so declared.
This insane overreaction by legal professionals is quite entertaining, however embarrassing it is. The silly district court order was to “ facilitate and effectuate.” The SCt. order said, in effect, don’t really know what you’re saying so clarify with due respect for executive authority in foreign policy. They could have been (and should have in light of the lower court’s derangement) clearer and more forceful, but they certainly didn’t order the president to do anything. In fact, they ordered the district judge to get his head out of his ass.
… but they certainly didn’t order the president to do anything.
SCOTUS 9-0 ordered the administration to facilitate the release of Abrego, and they effectively ordered the administration to report on their progress in doing so.
It was a very short opinion. You should try reading! Oh I forgot
MAGABOT
can’t read on its own.He has a plane available if Bukele wants to release him to send Garcia, LITERALLY, anywhere else.
That is all obligated for “facilitation”.
Calm down little Randal. Again, they did not order him to do anything. The lower court lunatic ordered him to “facilitate and effectuate” the return of the illegal gangbanger. The S.Ct said “we don’t know what the F you’re saying because we don’t know what the F ‘effectuate’ means.” And simply adding that the administration should be prepared to respond is saying nothing more than that a litigant will likely have to make a response in litigation.
And I would add that this lower court judge is just asking to be impeached. The federal judiciary will be far better off without this lunatic.
You keep ignoring “facilitate” little
MAGABOT
. And I think I know why.Allow me to assist you in your reading assignment since I know you are otherwise incapable:
Again, they did not order him to do anything.
That is an order to do something.
And judge demento keeps forgetting that he’s not the president, little man.
You mean Chief Justice Roberts?
Trump tried and the Salvadoran president refused. Short and sweet.
When did Trump try?
Kim Jong Un: [kidnaps Ivanka]
Trump: Oh noes! There’s nothing I can do because she’s on foreign soil!
SCOTUS: You oughtta try harder. Have you attempted diplomacy?
Trump: Shut up, eggheads! You can’t tell me how hard to try. He told me no. And I always take no for an answer. It was a beautiful letter, though….
Good. We are not ruled by the courts. We don’t vote for them, and they are not special people. Millions more need to be deported, as soon as possible. We’ve let judges act as politicians for far too long – time to rein them in.
You know, we are literally a handful of months from when Biden was who the American people had voted for, you think he should have swept aside those pesky courts?
The people voted for Biden allegedly — but he was certainly not the person in charge for most, if ANY, of “his” administration.
You mean like how Elon is in charge of this administration?
In your version of reality, sure. In ACTUAL reality, you are 100% wrong.
So yes, exactly like how Elon is in charge of this administration.
You can continue posting lies. It seems to be your only real option.
Why? Why do any “need” to be deported?
Because our cities are too crowded, traffic sucks, and we have a $2.5 trillion deficit every year as far as the eye can see.
Hahaha oh man this would be hysterical if only it were a joke.
Not only are MAGA Nazis, they’re like if Nazis were all entitled Karens. My commute is too long, gas those Jews!
I will approve them living with you. Specifically you.
Otherwise, fuck off.
Because they are here illegally.
It’s funny how people who complain the rule of law is at risk often oppose the enforcing the law in a way that undermines it.
Because they did not “sign the guest book”. In the micro, would you accept coming home finding a stranger ‘camping out’ in your kitchen rummaging through your refrigerator? And then complain about the brand of beer is there? Exactly what would be your next action.
I’ll wait.
That has not happened. Are you going for a fan fiction prize of some sort? And do you think you can write better fan fiction than Professor (sic) Josh Blackman?
All it would take is a phone call from Trump to Bukele and he won’t do it.
Are you saying the court can order Trump to call Bukele? If not, then your statement is irrelevant.
The Court can order Trump to bring him back. Trump can easily do that. Any American President has immense leverage over the President of El Salvador.
So you are saying that the judicial branch runs the executive branch?
“ The Court can order Trump to bring him back.”
You mean, to effectuate his release? It already tried that.
In fact, I’d go so far as saying the SCOTUS decision pretty clearly indicates that (at least the lower) courts can’t order Trump to bring him back.
They can order Trump to try to bring him back. Dan’s point is, Trump could obviously succeed in doing so, so why are you being performatively pedantic?
Seems like the only possible reason is that you’re fine with extralegal government kidnapping, as long as it’s of brown people. If there’s another reason, please, I’d love to be wrong.
But why should he?
To please a clown in a robe?
We do not want the criminal. Trump does not want the criminal.
I wish you gave a shit about citizens as much as you do illegal criminals.
Again, in what way is he a criminal? He was living legally in Maryland under protected status.
He was not living here legally. He had a deportation order plus an order that prevented him from being deported to El Salvador. Sending him to Guatemala is what they should have done, but they messed up and sent him to El Salvador. Because he was Salvadoran and the deporting crew didn’t have a record of the second order.
He was not ordered deported. Can you cite a source for the assertion that he was?
Fucking hell, is ignorance your super power?
Weird how people are so convinced that El Salvador is a sovereign country that we can’t even try to persuade to let Garcia go, but think that we can just instigate an invasion of Guatemala.
The DC already tried that. Got shot down at the SC. So, no.
Saying something like that the court’s “order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador” seems like a strange way to shoot it down.
And saying that the DC has to clarify its order because it might exceed the courts power is a strange way to uphold it.
I’m just going to create a macro so I don’t have to keep retyping it: which part of “the rest of the District Court’s order [i.e., other than the already passed deadline] remains in effect” confuses you?
And yet, the Supreme Court ordered the order to be modified. You keep clinging to the original order, which no longer has any legal force. So what you are saying it not true. SCOTUS did not just waive the deadline. They also said separation of powers to carefully clarify the jurisdiction question.
It’s interesting you keep making what are essentially a moral argument, pretending it has legal force.
If a court had the authority to do what you pretend, the Supreme Court would have upheld the district court’s order. You don’t have an explanation why it didn’t.
When you have neither the facts nor the law, bang the table.
You keep clinging to the original order, which no longer has any legal force.
SCOTUS only ordered the “effectuate” part to be
modifiedclarified. It explicitly upheld the “facilitate” part.So to the extent Trump is failing to facilitate Abrego’s release — in which he is failing spectacularly and intentionally — he’s defying the Supreme Court.
It did not. It said “clarify.” Those are different words with different meanings.
Sigh: which part of “the rest of the District Court’s order [i.e., other than the already passed deadline] remains in effect” confuses you?
How do you clarify something without modifying it?
SCOTUS said the order may have exceeded her authority. Are you suggesting that they upheld the order even if it exceeded her authority?
Clarify means to make clearer, not to change. HTH.
If my daughter texts me and asks to be picked up at the library, and then texts me a second time and says, “I meant the local public library, not the Library of Congress,” the second text clarifies the first; it doesn’t modify it.
And if it “may have” exceeded her authority, it stands to reason that it may not have exceeded her authority.
“Clarify means to make clearer, not to change.”
L, as they say, OL.
it is, because the original order did say effectuate and it order the government to bring him back and it was shot down. Further in the hearing, the Judge acknowledged that she doesn’t not have the power to order the government to bring him back. which is why i don’t understand why people keep saying they lost. they clearly won, the first order the court wrote required the government to facilitate and effectuate the guy back and even gave a deadline. The adopted Judge Wilkerson opinion which is that the Court cannot command the executive branch to do foreign affairs.
There was no shooting down. I did create a macro: which part of “the rest of the District Court’s order [i.e., other than the already passed deadline] remains in effect” confuses you?
They, of course, did not.
Of course they did.
They also did not say the executive branch had no obligation here. It’s just not the compulsion you and others pretend it to be.
If El Salvador were tomorrow to say the US “here take him back”, and the administration did nothing, then you would be correct. I’m still confused what the legal theory is that justifies a country expelling one of its citizens recently repatriated.
The district court has not yet established a record that the administration has authority to bring up Garcia’s release. The judge jumped to that conclusion in her original order, not supported by the record. She could be using her power to get the government to disclose those particulars, but instead has decided to grandstand about her “original” order still being ignored.
(From public comments dribbling out, it appears that Garcia is not part of the compensation arrangement other Venezuelans are being held by. Maybe that’s true, maybe the government is dissembling and that’s a retcon.)
Our country does not have the authority to bring Garcia back. He is the citizen of a sovereign foreign country, where he currently is located. They have full jurisdiction over him. The only thing that we can legally do is request extradition, and that is voluntary on the part of the other country, and requires a crime to be tried for. And the crime here is entering our country illegally.
Yes, he entered illegally…and then granted protected status to remain in the country.
So far, you people’s bad faith arguments have included the words “extradite,” “expel,” and “deport.” Since Garcia doesn’t want to be there and would gladly leave if he were allowed, none of those words are accurate. Letting someone voluntarily leave a country is none of those things.
But instead nothing; that’s exactly what she’s currently doing. (Odds that the administration complies? LOL.)
Why would Bukele extradite one of hisnown citizens from his home country? A gang member at that?
Is Trump supposed to order the DoJ to forge evidence to try to extradite Garcia?
Of course, we all know hios opponents have no problem with forging evidence…
Nonsensical comment.
Non-responsive.
For a chance to spend a weekend at Mar-a-Lago with Trump?
Why are you misusing the word “extradite,” when the correct word is “release”?
Why wouldn’t that be more of a reason to let him leave the country, if it weren’t utter bullshit, which it is?
Why would the US accept a non-citizen gang banger into its country?
You are aware if EVERYTHING you want to happen happens — he is STILL never setting foot in the USA.
Never. Going. To. Happen.
Non-citizen = yes, though with protected status
Re: gang-banger, that is currently nothing more than an assertion without evidence, no charges ever filed, no court ever adjudicated
No, it’s part of the completed judicial proceedings that leftists are ignoring to sell their lies.
2 separate courts disagree.
How do you know they haven’t already discussed it?
You know an awful lot for someone who doesn’t know squat and thinks NASA does a better job than SpaceX.
“All it would take is a phone call from Trump to Bukele and he won’t do it.”
Was unaware courts have ANY control over foreign policy. Where were they granted it to insist on the President negotiate with foreign powers?
…to send a non-American citizen back to the US, where he cannot enter regardless.
Skip the phone call;it is transient.
A simple one paragraph letter signed by Mr. Trump would suffice and be a permanent record.
Dear President Bukele,
The U.S. deported the ES citizen Garcia to you country on (date) because of an administrative error. We request that you release him to the custody of our agents who will transport him back to the US for legal hearings,
(Signed) DFT
That should suffice.
Why would a country expel one of its citizens recently returned to it?
Would the United States return a US citizen to Russia that bureaucrats had “accidentally” deported, because Putin asked for him back? Absurd.
Would the United States return a US citizen to Russia that bureaucrats had “accidentally” deported, because Putin asked for him back?
Maybe not. But at least Putin asked for him back in your hypothetical. I guess Putin is a better man than Trump.
Bukele has already said he is not going to.
Yeah, because Trump has essentially said “please don’t,” in violation of the Supreme Court.
SCOTUS has no power to dictate how foreign policy is done.
Feel free to demand an Amendment giving courts absolute power over the country, if you so wish.
I suspect you are underestimating Bondi’s willingness to tell the lower federal courts to go stuff it.
My expectation is, that unless a direct and explicit order comes from the Supreme Court itself, the Trump administration will consider orders from lower courts to be no more than ‘sugestions’ that it may, or more likely will not follow.
That appears to be the legal strategy: “we don’t have to follow any orders from the lower courts, only the supreme court’s orders have any status. And we’ll ignore lower court rulings while we drag out the appeal for as long as possible allowing us to implement whatever we want in the meantime. And if SCOTUS tells us no? Well, we’ll see if we obey them at that time.”
Of course, there’s no legal basis for ignoring lower court rulings, but they are making that argument anyway.
There’s even LESS legal basis for national injunctions, but hey, that is where we are.
I think ilya is incorrect and that the judge’s order is going to vacated.
all the examples the judge gave for facilitation would be a violation of separation of powers if the court had ordered the government to take those actions. and in actually they are all closer to effectuation which SCOTUS pretty told her were beyond the power of the court.
it would be beyond the court’s powers to order the executive to ask for him back. I don’t know what the court expects them to do voluntarily that which she can’t order them to do.
Further if El Salvador accepts that he is a MS-13 member they have the right to hold on him regardless of what the contract says because he is a citizen of El Salvador, and that alone is sufficient basis in El Salvador for the government to detain you.
But did WE prove he was a gang member? How can El Salvador conduct their own investigation on our soil?
What is there to prove? if the government of El Salvador believes he was a gang member, there is nothing else to discuss. Our rules of evidence don’t apply to them obviously.
In his original hearing he admits to being a gang member in El Salvador, however his mother said he was forced to join.
Even if true I don’t think El Salvador particularly cares if your membership in the gang was voluntary.
This is yet another lie from the fuck-hispanics crowd. He never “admitted” any such thing, and his mother never said any such thing.
How do you know this is a lie? I don’t know that it’s true. I’m just wondering where I can find an authoritative answer to that.
The same way he knows you’re a “fuck-hispanics” racist. It’s all supposition and bad faith from David. He will never present evidence to back his claims but will instead double down on say-so.
Will you ever present evidence to back up your claims? Lol obviously not. You’re not even trying to hide the fact that everything you say is utter shite. You’re in the “it’s all bullshit” camp. Fuck that camp. Have some respect for yourself.
The only time his alleged gang membership ever came up was in a bond hearing before an immigration judge back on April 24, 2019. The judge’s ruling says:
“But did WE prove he was a gang member? How can El Salvador conduct their own investigation on our soil?”
Proven in court hearing and upheld by an appeals court.
So, yes.
Really? Got a cite for an appeals court upholding he’s a gang member?
I don’t think you can. You’re doing lies on the Internet!
Feel free to be ignorant.
It seems to be your norm.
So not cite then.
Yep. Lies on the Internet.
Can you, for once, ask both of your brain cells to stop feuding?
There is no evidence for this assertion. If I am wrong, please cite the appropriate source.
Whether the US proved his gang status is not relevant to El Salvador’s decision to investigate on its soil and decide whether to release its citizen to US custody.
“I think ilya is incorrect and that the judge’s order is going to vacated.”
Which orders that are immediately appealable as of right has Judg Xinis issued? Exactly one — the April 4, 2025 order on the Plaintiffs’ March 25 renewed order for temporary restraining order, which the District Court construed as a motion for preliminary injunction. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.21.0_4.pdf
A unanimous SCOTUS upheld that order in substantial part and remanded the matter to the District Court for further proceedings. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf
the judge issued a new order today. ordering expedited discovery. however, her examples of facilitate, seem to be to be inappropriate, as they were examples of things beyond the courts power to order and seem to me to be effectuate, in fact one of the cases actually used the word effectuate rather than facilitate. I expect the government to appeal, and I think the court will vacate. probably 5-4 or 6-3.
It’s a longshot to get an appeal for a discovery order prior to final judgment.
usually yes, however the DOJ attorney was very good, and had ask the judge to define Facilitate in the order, and at first the judge did push back, but in the end, the judge did define it in the new order.
It’s too broad, and in this case, I think it is appealable, because I don’t think the government could ever meet the threshold without actually bringing him back, which the district court specially can’t order the government to do. and the discovery is because she said they didn’t facilitate.
It’s just discovery. The government will not be bringing him back during discovery. The government can appeal whether her definition of “facilitate” is constitutionally permissible after discovery and a final judgment.
“It’s too broad, and in this case, I think it is appealable, because I don’t think the government could ever meet the threshold without actually bringing him back, which the district court specially can’t order the government to do. and the discovery is because she said they didn’t facilitate.”
This order would be appealable prior to final judgment based on what federal statute, ikaritenshi?
Still waiting, ikaritenshi. This order would be appealable prior to final judgment based on what federal statute?
Hey did you inform him of your expectations and requirements for when he attends to this board?
I was grateful when you told me my posting rules and schedules.
the government filed their appeal today, making all the arguments I said they would.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.4.1.pdf
Xinis also has exactly zero ability to demand “discovery” about negotiations with foreign nations.
Trump should just send completely redacted pieces of paper, with the byline “We removed the parts the courts have zero right to see in the first place”
Is that your professional legal opinion? Got any cite at all for such a claim?
The whole separation of powers thing.
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
Feel free to read up.
Ordering discovery in a case or controversy is a core judicial power.
only if there is a legal basis, the court has no legal basis to order discovery on foreign relations.
As I said the government would appeal, and they did, citing everything I said they would.
The court’s order is beyond the pale, and way beyond what her authority entails. I expect 2-1 denial, and a SCOTUS 5-4 or 6-3 reversal.
That isn’t always true. The foreign relations have to be legal. The President has a lot of leeway with foreign policy, but it isn’t unlimited.
Meanwhile, counterpoint from Josh: love that Cheeto dick, don’t actually understand law
Verdict: Josh wins!
During the 1930s and 1940s Hitler took some “steps towards” facilitating Jews departing.
I mean, it’s not like Hitler didn’t play similar sorts of games with the Red Cross and other officials. I mean, once they’ve been deported out of the country, it’s like, not our problem anymore. Nothing we can do. So bad, so sad.
Trump gets pressured to show what conditions are like? Maybe they’ll get to see a Theresenstadt-like show prison.
All you have to do is slap a star of david on the Palestinians left alive, load them into box cars, and ship them to the nearest ghetto.
It’s kinda amazing…the people claiming to be victims are fire bombing synagogues and jewish governors etc. Next they’ll be claiming libs are actually doing it
Well he is a registered Socialist. Just saying…
He agrees with you on the treatment of Jordanians who live in Gaza.
I half suspect YOU fire bombed Shapiro.
The only relevant question is was Garcia in the county illegally? Since he was I am not particularly concerned that he was removed, nor is it my concern what happened to him afterward. Don’t want to end up in Hell? Don’t enter the country illegally no atter what your sob story from back home is.. Hopefully he will serve as a warning and example to others. Allowing illegals to remain is a slap in the face to everyone who entered the legal and proper way
Your comment is an example of why the hysteria of this case is so stupid.
The public isn’t going to view this as the existential threat to democracy requiring a revolt to overthrow the government.
And let’s speculate would happen if he is returned.
He would receive a new hearing where he would again be declared an illegal alien and receive a deportation order. The question then would be where to deport him to and it’s possible that place might be El Salvador despite the previous asylum claim since his claim was that he feared a rival gang and the Bukele administration has locked up all the gangs to a point that they are no longer a threat. In other words the facts have changed and his asylum claim is no longer valid.
“And let’s speculate would happen if he is returned.”
He would be barred from leaving the plane and would be immediately sent somewhere else.
Very possibly, somewhere less pleasant.
That is not, in fact, the relevant question, let alone the only one.
No, it really is.
In fact, we would not permit a plane to LAND in the US if he was on it.
The whole not required to allow a non-citizen criminal into the country. Courts are remarkably powerless to impact foreign policy. They are going to learn that lesson.
That’s not what Bondi said.
Also, we wouldn’t? So if a passenger plane were approaching a U.S. airport and we found out that he was on it, we would, in your mind…
(a) shoot the plane out of the sky with a SAM?
(b) scramble fighters to force the plane to divert to another country?
(c) something else?
No, she said she’d have a plane for him.
Never said he’d land here. Never said he’d be allowed off the plane.
You seem to confuse what was said for what you WISH was said.
He was not. He had been granted protected status by a judge.
Clarification based on David’s earlier note. NOT here under protected status! Simply an order not to deport to El Salvador, mea culpa.
Bukele could demand $1 trillion to send Maryland Man back to the United States and Ilya would write a post demanding we pay it.
A million is chump change, probably a lot less than thy’re going to have to pay in legal fees. If it were a billion dollars it would still be the duty of any federal judge to throw in jail whoever needs to be thrown in jail until it is paid. Don’t like it? Don’t elect people who stupidly throw your money away by placing themselves in the thrall of tinpot dictators and allowing them to stick them, your country, and your tax dollars up for ransom.
Kleppe wrote $1 Trillion. With a “T”
ReaderY wrote: “If it were a billion dollars it would still be the duty of any federal judge to throw in jail whoever needs to be thrown in jail until it is paid.”
Thank you for your refreshingly honest reply. To be clear, you are a crazy person; but I admire your willingness to wear it on your sleeve.
I’m with ReaderY.
If we have to spend $1B so be it. Let the Republicans explain why this stupid waste of money was necessary.
Start a GoFundMe. You can be the first contributor. Want to donate to a gangbanger, use your own money.
Whether he’s a gangbanger is in dispute. What we do know is that he’s been tried and convicted of nothing. If you don’t care that we sent somebody who’s been convicted of no crime to a concentration camp for life, and you don’t think we should make a sincere and concerted effort to correct that wrong, you’re contemptible.
No, it’s not. Found to be one in court and upheld on appeal.
You think he was “convicted” of “being one?” You truly are a moron. Morons Again Govern America.
Hmm, I did not say “convicted”.
You really are unable to read, you simplistic mesomorphic victim of incest.
Vryedni said “convicted,” doofus. Now that that’s been pointed out to you, do you wish to clarify your testimony?
I did not say convicted, you legitimate fucker of your mother.
Cite source please. I have found no source to support this assertion.
“Whether he’s a gangbanger is in dispute”
It really isn’t. You’re just staring the evidence in the face and saying “nuh-uh.”
“What we do know is that he’s been tried and convicted of nothing.”
Is a trial and conviction necessary to send an illegal immigrant back to his home country? More misdirection.
Link to the evidence.
Immigration court order and affirmation by immigration appeals court. This is not difficult to look up. But since I know you’ll put the obligation on everyone else, here’s one thing to look at. Immigration court orders start at page 32. If you want something else, it’s not hard to search the SCOTUS docket for various filings.
ERROR: File or directory not found.
Great jerb.
Pro tip: even if those said what you think, neither of those constitute evidence.
At this point Trump’s lawyers are effectively lion tamers, there to throw things at the lions in order to keep them at bay. These lions, being cats of a sort, suffer from the feline infirmity of curiosity; throw papers with words at them, and they will pick them up and puzzle over them for a considerable time. If that fails, one can throw more papers with more words.
After all, they know these lions are caged. They can’t really do anything. It’s all just a show It suits the keepers’ purposes to continue the lions’ delusion that they even have any agency at all, let alone any pretense of mastery in the matter. The keepers know perfectly well who the real boss is; it simply suits their purposes to keep the lions, and the gullible public, deluded as long as possible. The keepers can end the show at any time. All they have to do is leave, shut the cage door, lock it, and stop paying any attention to the lions’ attempts to growl orders. Or, for that matter, their whimpers begging to be let out.
This is an extremely dangerous separation of powers doctrine that Ilya appears to be proposing. In short, does he actually believe a district court judge can order…
1. The President of the United States to demand a foreign country release one of the foreign country’s own civilians from incarceration?
What else can the district court judge do?
Can the district court judge order sanctions be made against the foreign country if it it doesn’t agree? Can the district court judge order the US Military take direct action against the foreign country?
Ilya is correct here…much is at stake. But in the very much the wrong direction.
You sure gotta fall for some embarrassingly ridiculous pretexts to be as deep into Trump as Armchair is.
Maybe another hypothetical will help you deflect from leaning into being an utter rube.
You did not cite the single error there.
Garcia is NOT an American citizen. He IS a citizen of El Salvador. Ergo, it is Bukele’s decision. He already publicly said no.
Bukele didn’t decide anything other than to obey Trump’s desires.
I’d say you know that, but I don’t think you’re in a place where truth matters. You have abandoned reason and embraced passion.
He is a citizen of El Salvador.
He is not an American.
He will never set foot here.
I do question if you’re literate.
I was going to explain why that was irrelevant.
But this is the same know-nothing shit I saw with birthers.
Obama is a citizen of Kenya.
He is not an American.
He will never be your Preisdent.
Weird racist claptrap only has so many flavors before it repeats itself.
Hmm, where did I comment on Obama?
Do you suck your dad with that mouth?
The thing is, this is of a piece with the dumbass racist interpretations of the 14th amendment. The jurisdiction of a country over someone turns on the person being in that country (with rare exceptions like diplomats), not on “citizenship.”
Whether it’s “Bukele’s decision” depends, of course, on Salvadoran law, but assuming he has such authority, it doesn’t matter whether the prisoner we’re talking about was born in Indiana descended from people who came over on the Mayflower or was born in Venezuela and came to the U.S. legally and was then falsely accused of being TdA and deported, or whether he was born in El Salvador and snuck across the U.S. border a few weeks before he was deported by Trump.
What you people actually mean when you say, “He’s a citizen of El Salvador” is, “I don’t care about him because he’s Hispanic, but if he were white I’d be really upset and want Trump to do something.”
He is a citizen of El Salvador.
He resides in El Salvador now.
He is not our concern. And we have no right to ask Bukele to send his criminal citizen to us so we can send him…to ANY other country.
I don’t know what the word “right” means in this context. We have the right to ask Bukele to hop on one foot while whistling “Oh Canada” backwards, if we want. Of course, he can say no. He can say no if Garcia were an American citizen, a Russian citizen, or from the planet Xenu. And then we can use various combinations of carrot and stick to try to get him to change his mind.
That’s a silly exaggeration. Of course we have a right to ask. What we don’t have is a right to order.
Plus, he was resident here with protected status.
Has anyone raised the possibility that the deportation was not an error? That the regime deliberately deported someone they shouldn’t have to test the limits of what they could get away with? Low probability, IMO, but not zero.
I think it more likely they knew it was illegal to deport him but didn’t care.
I also think a court ordering the President to get a foreign country to deport one of their own citizens who is in prison for being a gang member, per their judiciary, is as silly as ordering a murderer to revive his victim’s corpse. The only judicial remedy is prosecution for violating the court order that he was protected from deportation.
Yes. This is what the judge should be probing, because if true the government lied to the court, which actually is very bad and sanctionable. A legitimate use of her deposition powers, not trying to find out about presidential communications with another head of state, to enforce her erroneous view of her order.
Of course, the government lawyers before her might have been lied to themselves. I would like to know about that.
I have said exactly that, repeatedly. And I’d be very comfortable betting you a hundred dollars to your nickel it’s the case. The odds would still be considerably in my favor.
It’s a test case for an effective secret police and gulag system operating outside the reach of the courts. You disn’t hear Trump talk about asking for five more prisons to deport “homegrown criminals” now that he’s established a successful test case?
If he can can get away with this, with just a few more pushes he can dissappear Hillary Clinton, Liz Cheney, Chris krebs, or any other “criminal” he wants into one of those El Salvadoran concentration camps. He can make his enemies disappear by the thousands, possibly millions. He can make anyone he’s ever had a grudge against dissappear. And of course DOGE is using its access to government databases to compile lists of enemies to spirit out to prison or worse in El Salvador. What do you think DOGE has been sniffing through all those databases for?
Lololol. Hillary Clinton is clearly the same as an illegal immigrant who an immigration appeals court found was likely a member of MS-13. This is truly bonkers.
Uh… it’s Trump’s own words. Do you really think this isn’t the endgame? This is definitely the endgame. At what point are you gonna get concerned?
I’m 100% sure that when Hillary’s in some foreign torture prison, you’re going to be here defending Trump. “But her emails!”
Is the sky blue in your world?
Six months ago, if someone had told you that within 100 days of being inaugurated, Trump was going to illegally deport someone, in violation of a court order, to a foreign torture prison, and not even try to bring them back, in violation of the Supreme Court, would you have said “Oh yeah, that seems fine, that’s what I’m voting for!”
I am saying that NOW.
I’d be even happier if he did this from day one.
LOL
I have! I think it’s more likely that people in this administration just hate brown people and are rushing to do everything they can to get rid of as many as they can, as quickly as they can, and just screwed up… but it’s certainly possible that it was intentional. What I think is undeniable is that this confrontation with the courts is 100% intentional. They could have gotten him back at any time with one phone call, and are deliberately refusing because they want to establish that there are no checks and balances on Trump.
Thank you for your report from Whitelandia.
I’m beginning to think you don’t know what that term refers to.
You’re absolutely correct. Trump is looking for a fight. And he’s gonna win it because a stupid judge doesn’t know her limitations.
Accusations of racism are principled legal arguments! That totally justifies the judges order to return Garcia! Because racism!
“Hate brown people” is not an accusation of racism, according to David above. Somehow.
No, you just can’t read. It’s an accusation of racism. He’s been quite clear about that.
+1
Advocates to keep Abrego in CECOT invariably discount to zero considerations of due process. Those cannot be allowed into the discussion, lest they invalidate detention arguments.
I expect SCOTUS will be troubled by that same dilemma. If it decides to approve Trump’s conduct of the case, SCOTUS will be forced to overturn as unconstitutional at least part of the due process jurisprudence which stands athwart Trump’s claim to unfettered power. A problem to think of a way to do that without endangering American citizens looks hard to solve. Prisoners will not present with lines pre-drawn, to separate the privileged citizens from the non-privileged others.
You think they will be “troubled”? I very much doubt that.
“Troubled,” in this instance was not so much meant to imply questions of conscience, but instead unavoidably awkward and dangerous practicalities. I do not think any conceivable Court decision which leaves Trump free to act at pleasure against immigrants can do anything but deliver culpable catastrophe to the Court.
He is a citizen of El Salvador.
It is filed, DEEPLY, under “not our problem”
He was specifically given an immigration classification which prohibited him from being returned to El Salvador. Then, without any further process, he was returned to El Salvador.
Tough shit.
I do not feel bad. At all. If they decided to not even land and just chuck him off the plane — so be it. Not my problem.
You’re come across like a raving lunatic.
Because it’s the *sane* people who fantasize about throwing people out of planes.
Not people. Illegal criminals.
I am quite fond of protecting humans.
He was here legally, under protected status, and has been neither charged with nor convicted of any crime.
He was here illegally. The only thing he was protected from was being sent to El Salvador. Kinda ironic huh. They could have deported him to any other country at any time.
Yes, I see I was mistaken about the extent of his protected status. Thanks for the correction
“I’m not a racist; I just want to murder Hispanic people!”
This coming from the guy who thinks a Hispanic man should do whatever a white man demands.
Adolf Nieporent and all.
Just because Somin thinks something is bad doesn’t mean it’s good.
The executive branch (DoJ) decided in 2019 that sending this guy back to El Salvador would be illegal. Sending him back wouldn’t just violate some random law (which would of course be bad), it would violate laws which Congress adopted to harmonize U. S. law with U. S. treaty obligations. Specifically, the DoJ said Garcia faced return (“refoulement”) to a country where he’d be persecuted. By gangs.
For El Salvador to release Garcia might be seen as wounding to national pride, since it could be interpreted as agreeing with the 2019 DoJ ruling affirming the danger of persecution for Garcia in El Salvador.
“OK, we’ll send him back, we don’t want him, our gangs would just persecute him anyway.”
Doesn’t sound like something a proud country would say of itself.
Could a court stop the U. S. treasury from reimbursing El Salvador under the prison deal until Garcia gets released?
That sounds like a better route than judicially monitoring U. S. diplomacy.
One of the constitutional law geniuses will explain the problem of standing. A country that depends heavily on lawyers will inevitably become monstrous. They may have different, um, interpretations, but they play on the same team. An oligarchy you can evade but a lawyergarchy you cannot.
Why not just prosecute whatever individual ordered the illegal deportation, same as they would prosecute a murderer or kidnapper?
If someone had kidnapped the guy and taken him to El Salvador for reward money, the only remedy is prosecuting him for kidnapping. I can’t imagine any court ordering the kidnapper to go kidnap him back.
Qualified immunity, in all its glory.
Of course no government employee ever wants to eliminate that. Just like scaling back Trump’s powers but not the President’s.
There is no qualified immunity to criminal prosecution.
Since when? Cops routinely raise it as a defense, when prosecuted for actions on the job. And mostly succeed, when accused of violating civil rights (Due Process, etc), etc. they succeed much more often than many of us would like.
Since forever. Cops do not in fact ever raise it as a defense when prosecuted for actions on the job. They raise it as a defense when sued.
Right. The usual defense for when they’re prosecuted is that they don’t get prosecuted in the first place because the prosecutor likes cops. So they don’t actually NEED a defense against being prosecuted.
Qualified immunity relates to civil, not criminal, litigation.
Um, Trump’s immune from prosecution according to SCOTUS. And in any case who’s going to prosecute? Pam Bondi is going to prosecute other administration officials for doing what Trump wants? Even if she wanted to, which of course is absurd, Trump can just pardon them.
Welcome to Lawfare 2025. Same as Lawfare 2016-2024, only different. You didn’t care then. Your concern now is noted. Next!
Worse. David cheered them on.
Your addled brain seems to have forgotten that Biden’s DOJ prosecuted his own son. Can you imagine???
Yeah, only after their desperate attempts to avoid it became too public for them to get away with it.
The President isn’t typically responsible for ordering deportations. Do you think the President reviews every immigration case personally? Of course not.
The facts on the ground have changed, rendering the initial order against being deported back to El Salvador, moot.
El Salvador now has a lower murder and crime rate than Maryland where Mr. Garcia wants to return to. He is literally safer in his own country.
Stipulated, but there’s still that ruling which has to be changed, with accompanying due process.
Indeed, and that would be my chief complaint: Not that he got deported. That they didn’t bother with the process of changing the old ruling to account for new facts on the ground. Or bother with shipping him off to some other country.
They could have gotten rid of him entirely legally and in compliance with all the rules, and didn’t bother, instead sending him to the one place on Earth he actually had a viable legal argument he couldn’t be sent.
This was either inexcusably sloppy, or deliberate defiance of the law. I’m tending to think it was sloppy, but my mind could be changed.
The obvious flaw here is that Bukele’s cleaning up of the gang problem is that he put them all in CECOT. So this guy, granted withholding due to gang threats etc… is not only sent to the country where he was not legally allowed to be sent, but into the facility where all the gang members are going to be. It’s ridiculously arrogant to say we are now powerless to fix our own mistake – cure our own illegal act – when they are also paying El Salvador with tax payer money for the pleasure of detaining him there. It’s ludicrous.
If Trump simply deported him into El Salvador and he was free; i think the facts would better support the logic. If he was then arrested for gang crimes and sent to CECOT so be it. But those aren’t the facts we have. Our facts are so far from that they might as well be on different planets.
“If Trump simply deported him into El Salvador and he was free; i think the facts would better support the logic.”
That contingency was excluded by Garcia’s immigration status. They’d have to change his status (using due process) before sending him to El Salvador at all.
“The facts on the ground have changed, rendering the initial order against being deported back to El Salvador, moot.”
Why then, Kevin P, did the feds not ask the tribunal that issued the order to set it aside because of mootness?
Excuses, like, maybe, that the government of El Salvador won’t release Garcia, one of their citizens, for shipment back here?
I was asking about why the feds, prior to grabbing Abrego Garcia, did not ask the tribunal that issued the order to set it aside because of mootness?
My guess is that they’re moving so fast on the deportations, with relatively few resources, (Since Congress can’t be bothered to actually appropriate more funds for deportation.) that it’s all rather slapdash, and somebody just made a mistake.
And then they got stubborn.
KevinP, you are correct. The people cannot seem to wrap their little minds around the fact that Garcia was deemed to be an illegal MS-13 gang member by an immigration judge. That decision was upheld on appeal. The Barrio 18 gang that he claims he was in fear of if deported back to his home country has been taken out, for the most part by the El Salvadorian government. He had a deportation order with a witholding from being deported to El Savador. Based upon the AEA, that witholding became invalid. Would they be doing this much crying if he would have been deported to Samolia? I doubt it. Thay cannot even admit the facts. The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in the governments favor. They cannot understand the words they read. Everyday, this leftist author post some silly argument on here. People are tired of hearing it.
KevinP, you are correct. The people cannot seem to wrap their little minds around the fact that Garcia was deemed to be an illegal MS-13 gang member by an immigration judge. That decision was upheld on appeal. The Barrio 18 gang that he claims he was in fear of if deported back to his home country has been taken out, for the most part by the El Salvadorian government. He had a deportation order with a witholding from being deported to El Savador. Based upon the AEA, that witholding became invalid. Would they be doing this much crying if he would have been deported to Samolia? I doubt it. They cannot even admit the facts. The SCOTUS ruled 9-0 in the governments favor. They cannot understand the words they read. Everyday, this leftist author post some silly argument on here. People are tired of hearing it.
Here are the real facts, unlike the claims in this article, from Garcia’s Bond hearing before the immigration judge.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.1_1.pdf
Here is the ruling on his appeal from the immigration judge’s determination. Again, you can see here that this lunatic does not have clear facts. Instead, they choose the distort them from what the record reflects. This illegal MS-13 gang member received all the due process he is due. Good riddance!
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.11.2.pdf
Which part of “the rest of the District Court’s order [i.e., other than the already passed deadline] remains in effect” confuses you?
the whole due regard for Executive’s foreign policy powers
Judge Xinis gave it all the regard it was due.
That’s not how it works, even if there were any reason to believe your facts.
“Could a court stop the U. S. treasury from reimbursing El Salvador under the prison deal until Garcia gets released?”
No.
Courts cannot dictate foreign policy. Much as they may wish they can.
No, a court could not stop the treasury from reimbursing El Salvador, if Garcia’s detention is not part of that arrangement. Those things are legally distinct it appears. That would be an interference in foreign relations, beyond the court’s jurisdiction. No American court can indirectly order the coercion of a sovereign nation, outside of any treaty or other legal agreement to which the US and that nation have entered.
The latest info dribbling out is that Garcia’s detention is separate from the Venezuelan detention financial arrangement, probably because El Salvador isn’t a third country to him. The district court should investigate whether this is true.
“Facilitate” is a weasel word from justices who know perfectly well that Trump will look for excuses. They are complicit. The Federalist Society wolves have gained control of the herd.
No. They probably know that they don’t have the power to order the Executive Branch to “effectuate” the return of Garcia from his native El Salvador. At this point, with the government of that country refusing to send him back, “effectuate” would probably require either the Secretary of State to change this country’s foreign policy in regards to El Salvador, and/or the Secretary of Defense to intervene militarily. Which are core Executive Branch/Presidential powers. “Facilitate” steps back from that precipice.
Exactly this.
This all seems backwards to me. If there was a crime committed by deporting him, then punish those responsible (via the AG, DOJ, or what have you). But the damage was done and now this particular individual is out of reach of the courts.
An illustrative example: Instead of deporting him, what if the administration had lined him up before a firing squad and executed him. Obviously the court could not order them to resurrect him and his life is outside of the courts powers. What could happen is the criminal prosecution of the individuals responsible.
Punishing the crime committed is what stops the burning of witches, not some judicial slippery slope after the fact.
Exactly. Same as with any crime, whether kidnapping or murder or assault. Even a burglary is punished by a fine or sentence, not an order to return the stolen goods and undo the ancillary damage.
I mean, that’s wrong. Restitution is in fact a routine part of a sentence for a criminal.
Money restitution, or returning the goods and repairing the damage? There’s a difference.
You also skipped the kidnapping and murder cases, so I’m going to guess you agree with them.
Qualified immunity, in all its glory.
Qualified immunity is not a defense to criminal prosecution.
…and who, EXACTLY, would prosecute?
Trump can just pull a Biden and pardon every single person involved in his admin in perpetuity, if he so wishes.
I agree that no one is going to be prosecuted for their role in this episode. I am just pointing out that qualified immunity will play no role in that.
The primary charge being bandied about, is a civil rights violation, notably deprivation of Due Process. And cops routinely raise just that defense to just that sort of charges, and often win.
It’s possible they’ll be prosecuted two years from now once Pramila Jayapal is president.
You think… the Dems are going to take the House in the 2026 midterms, name Jayapal speaker, and then impeach Trump and Vance and convict and remove both of them?
If they can make an oopsie with a Salvadoran, sending him where he specifically wasn’t supposed to be sent, they can make an oopsie with a U. S. citizen, sending him to a prison abroad.
There are, or used to be, better protections against this sort of thing – the government putting its people in prison abroad – in English law.
The historic Habeas Corpus Act provides (basically) that the govt may not take an English subject, living in England, and imprison him outside of England, whether in a Crown colony or in a foreign territory. Remedies: Suits for false imprisonment, and punishing violators with loss of property and office. Also, no royal pardons for the official kidnappers.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/1679-habeas-corpus-act
Subjects, yes. Citizens, yes. But Garcia is a subject/citizen of El Salvador, where he currently resides.
I expect the eventual outcome of all of this to be a SCOTUS-endorsed ban against deporting people to extraterritorial prisons, at least not without some mechanism of getting them back out in case of “administrative errors.”
The government has demonstrated that it’s too careless — at best! — to be allowed to make irrevocable decisions about people’s lives.
I would certainly hope something like that was the end result.
We got into this whole extraterritorial prison thing with Guantanamo, and they never should have humored for an instant the claim that people we locked up there didn’t have the full protection they’d have on US territory.
My only proviso is that sometimes we deport people who have criminal records in their country of origin, and in such cases they’re not imprisoning the person on our behalf, but instead on their own. That’s legitimate, unlike outsourcing our own detention.
The point being that a citizen is just as likely to be oopsied as an alien. It’s possible the administration intentionally violated the “not to El Salvador” order, but it’s also possibly they were just sloppy and didn’t check. It’s that level of sloppiness that puts citizens at risk. Consider, the tattoo recognition scheme used to identify gang members includes one that an English guy, who has never even visited the U.S. let alone joined a south American gang, has on his arm…
El Salvador President Says He Won’t Return Man Deported to His Country.
So, how do they get from “facilitate”, to getting him back here, when the government (el Salvador) that has him in custody refuses to give him back? Without violating Separation of Powers, by the Courts infringing the Executive’s power to conduct foreign policy?
Check, if not almost checkmate. Is the judge going to order te Secretary of State put pressure on El Salvador to get Garcia back? Or order the Secretary of Defense to order the 101st Airborne, or a SEAL team, to remove Garcia from the prison in El Salvador? I can see the judge maybe making that sort of order. But I don’t see the Supreme Court going along with that. Why not? Because what they have is soft power, based on the 200+ years of the Executive doing what the Judiciary demands, as long as what they demand doesn’t infringe the Executives core powers. And determining foreign policy or ordering the military to intervene would infringe the President’s core Constitutional powers.
My theory, right now, is that Trump and his Administration, are looking for the cases where the Supreme Court essentially has to back down. And, I think that this case, right now, is one of those cases. And their choice of “facilitate” over “effectuate” is evidence that they know where Trump’s line in the sand is here. We shall see.
yep
Exactly.
If it’s unconstitutional, how can the judge threaten to terminate it? The flip side of such a threat is that the program would continue if the guy is returned.
It seems like some of that freedom is given to him by the separation of powers doctrine. If the courts think they have the power to order the administration to do things, they should say what those things are and order them to do them.
Exactly this.
It is commonly thought that the President himself is not subject to injunctions. The President himself apparently conspired with a person outside the court’s jurisdiction to prevent the court’s order from being carried out. If two people not subject to an injunction work to undermine it, is that defiance?
The conduct of foreign policy, by definition, is not a conspiracy from the standpoint of triggering the court’s coercive power. He gets to conduct foreign policy.
Illegal alien gets deported. No reason needs to be given for that. Period.
If Garcia has a civil rights cause, he should sue under 1983. He might win.
Judge Xinis is going to get Boasberged. These depositions are getting silly. Garcia aint coming back.
Worse, the Progressive left and Somin are playing right into Trumps hand. They are sticking up for an illegal alien gang member instead of ordinary americans. Trump loves this fight, and hes winning.
I thought about 1983, but was reminded that primarily targets state government officials violations. Though there is the Bivens exception, which may interact with qualified immunity for federal officials.
Yeah, but this particular situation resonates with the woke narrative, since the executive has given Garcia an immigration classification prohibiting return to El Salvador…because Garcia would face persecution *by gangs.*
The classification isn’t sacrosanct; it can be changed if due process is followed. But there wasn’t any attempt to do this. Under the circumstances, it was no more legal to force Garcia to El Salvador than to force one of us there.
Plenty of Americans have expressed a preference for the *enforcement* of immigration laws, and for the *lawful* curtailment of certain immigration. That presumably wouldn’t translate into *support for the violation of immigration laws by immigration authorities.*
You are assuming that one President can’t end the classification created by a predecessor. See my comment below about Good and Bad MS-13. BIden’s Administration created a two tier system – Good MS-13 and Bad MS-13. Trump’s Administration eliminated it. Which leaves that Garcia has been adjudged MS-13 by a competent court, and is, thus, deportable as MS-13.
“You are assuming that one President can’t end the classification created by a predecessor.”
In the very post you’re responding to I said: “The classification isn’t sacrosanct; it can be changed if due process is followed.”
So the issue comes down to due process. And if you’re correct, the evidence is in the executive’s favor, so revoking Garcia’s classification shouldn’t have been hard. But there was no attempt to do so, and now they’re acknowledging the deportation was illegal.
Given a finding that an alien is not removable under 8 USC 1231(b)(3)(A) there are four exceptions allowing deportation:
8 USC 1231(b)(3)(B). So far the Attorney General has not claimed that any of them apply.
More propaganda from credentialed ideologues.
Mr. Garcia is not an American citizen nor is he a permanent resident alien. In matter of fact, he is in the United States illegally. This status has been clearly defined in his numerous court appearances.
Mr. Garcia was detained in 2019 and denied release on bond by an immigration court that found MR. GARCIA IS A VERIFIED MEMBER OF MS-13.
The court verified Mr. Garcia’s MS-13 gang name and rank and noted that Abrego presented no evidence whatsoever to rebut his status as a member of MS-13 to the court.
The same 2019 immigration court found Mr. Garcia a flight risk and a danger to the community if released.
Mr. Garcia appealed the immigration court’s finding and the COURT OF APPEALS UPHEALD THE FINDING THAT ABREGO WAS A MS-13 GANG MEMBER, A FLIGHT RISK, AND A DANGER TO SOCIETY IF RELEASED.
Mr. Garcia WAS NOT GRANTED A LEGAL RIGHT TO STAY IN THE UNITED STATES. He was granted a withholding of removal only that prevented removal to El Salvador only. There was no prohibition that he could be removed at any time to another third party country.
How can an immigration court finding support indefinite imprisonment? It’s not a criminal court. It does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt, it does not guarantee lawyers, etc. How can the findings of such a court support open-ended (i.e. life) imprisonment?
Simple. He was too dangerous to allow out on the streets of the US, and had nothing else to do with him. We didn’t want to send him back to El Salvador, since his life was supposedly threatened there, and no one else would take him. Now, with a change in government, El Salvador isn’t going to execute him, send him right back, and is willing to take him back. So, back he went.
“How can an immigration court finding support indefinite imprisonment? It’s not a criminal court. It does not require proof beyond reasonable doubt”
You didn’t answer the question, you just insisted it was a Very Good Thing.
Weird that the Trump administration chose to allow him out on the streets of the US, then, immediately after he was found deportable.
*Because* it is not a criminal court.
‘Detention’ is not considered imprisonment. Fucked up? Yes. But that’s the way it is in the US – ‘administrative’ actions have fewer protections than criminal ones.
Free Media’s Amber Duke did some research into this and mentioned the same things. I think the Reason sensors removed my comment with a link to the video, but here it is again. It is worth watching to see Amber go into depth on what she researched.
https://youtu.be/Xi68yPVNtSQ?si=GOhyskurjuVxiDqk
“He was granted a withholding of removal only that prevented removal to El Salvador only. There was no prohibition that he could be removed at any time to another third party country.”
Yeah, but he *was* removed to El Salvador despite the prohibition. He didn’t have a lot of rights, but the one right he had was violated.
Ok, so what about a person haled into court because he/she, as a non-party, criticized the judge. This actually happens. That obviously violates the First Amendment. But it’s too bad, so sad.
This must some obscure TEAM sarcasm, but I’ve criticized plenty of woke, progs, and Dems.
Because the Trump Administration abolished the Withholding of Removal status for MS-19, based on there being a new government in El Salvador.
Just to be clear – was Garcia’s immigration immigration status adjusted to reflect the arguably changed situation since 2019?
This is Bruce Hayden’s typical fan-fic. None of that happened, and he doesn’t even get the gang’s name correct.
As I see this, what happened was that the Biden Administration determined that there were Good MS-13 and Bad MS-13, and Garcia was Good MS-13, and as a result needed US protection from the Bad MS-13s. The Trump Administration takes the opposite side – MS-13 is MS-13. We don’t want them, Good or Bad. And helpfully, the El Salvador government is more than willing to take them all back, Good or Bad.
The Biden administration would probably offer asylum to both sides of a gang dispute. Being part of a gang dispute is the worst reason for asylum.
Wow. This post exemplifies the problem with this idea of super-deference to courts. The courts have no foreign relations power. None. Thus, any order given by the courts has to reflect this fundamental limitation. The idea that the Executive Branch has to cooperate in good faith to achieve a goal desired by the judiciary is just daft. According to the courts, the Administration has to open the border for this guy (a dubious proposition). And while Judge Xinis would like the Administration to have El Salvador allow the guy to come back, there’s no way, as a practical matter, to force the Executive Branch to tell Bukele that we really want him back. Bukele knows Trump doesn’t want him back, and that’s really the end of the matter. (Remember, the Supreme Court’s order requires deference to the Executive’s foreign policy power.)
Moreover, if reports are true, Xinis actually said that Bukele’s statement in WH is not evidence. If true, that is the dumbest thing I’ve heard in a while. She has no business being a federal judge.
Needs moar random other deep cuts your mad about.
Well summed up.
And like the sarc on the other side of the site, this sarc is ALSO muted. Nothing of value is lost.
As I said two days ago all of this is the predictable result and can be laid at the feet of CJ Roberts who tried to get a 9-0 opinion and did so by invoking irrevocably ambiguous language that would only kick the can for the next argument down the road.
We’ve all been at it for at least a thousand posts now and each side says that SCOTUS handed them a victory. We argue about facilitate v. effectuate and who is complying with the order and who isn’t. Can’t we at least agree that is the mark of a remarkably poor opinion? Either order him back and deal with the inevitable fallout from such an uncharted judicial step or tell the judge she needs to back off.
Make your rulings solve human issues, not foster them.
You are right. What Roberts hoped for, I think, was the Trump Admin just making the problem go away by catching the drift–problem is that the Trump Admin is spoiling for a fight. And it’s a fight the Admin should win. Judge Xinis is way over her skis.
And in other news, Tish James is in hot water!! Couldn’t happen to a nicer person.,
It is endlessly amusing.
Based on the requirements to be NY AG, one could make an argument that she was no longer NY AG the moment she claimed her primary residence was in VA.
Which ends all of the nonsense she pulled with Trump.
One could not in fact make that argument — it’s where she actually lived, not what she “claimed,” that’s relevant under NY law — and it would have no effect on NY’s civil or criminal actions against Trump either way.
Good God, Nieporent. Of course you can, in fact, make that argument. You can, in fact, make all sorts of losing arguments.
Um check your evidence rules. A statement of a party-opponent, even if demonstrably untrue, can be substantive evidence. So a court, theoretically anyway, could take James’ statement and rule that she was actually a resident. Now, this would have to be litigation in which she’s a party, but Trump can manufacture such a lawsuit.
People are overthinking this SCOTUS ruling. Here is what they determined:
1)Was it wrong to deport this guy to El Salvador?
Yes
2)Is there anything that can be done to get him returned?
Probably not
Period. End of story. SCOTUS knows there’s essentially no way to get the guy back, and is telling the District Court to take a fucking hint and drop it.
This would all have gone away if Trump had just said, “Well, I asked El Salvador to return him but they declined.” That was the hint SCOTUS was dropping.
Trump, obviously, declined, for two obvious reasons. One, it would make him look weak to try and fail to get him back. Two, he wants this fight. He thinks it’s a political winner — and he could, disgustingly, be right about that — plus he wants to set precedents that his administration isn’t subject to any laws. It’s a win – win – win… for him. Everybody else in the world loses.
Lastly, it’s worth mentioning the headache Abrego would cause if he were returned. He’d talk all about how horrible the prison is and invite all these Convention Against Torture problems that the administration is implausibly claiming don’t exist.
Trump does not want him back because he was an illegal alien with no right to be in the USA.
But when judges violate people’s rights, it’s all good, right?
https://redstate.com/elizabeth-vaughn/2020/02/24/newly-declassified-fbi-documents-at-odds-with-claims-of-mueller-team-in-papadopoulos-case-n129468
And then there’s this. Where does Papadopoulos go to get his two weeks back? Spare me your tears
Hey, me and mine have been fighting against prosecutorial misconduct for decades against your side’s constant mantra of being “tough on crime” no matter the trampled rights and other consequences. Welcome to the (Democratic) party!
But let’s see if you ever manage to extend your newfound grace beyond white people like Papadopoulos, Trump, and the Jan 6 rioters. As far as I can tell, you think of prisons as government housing for black and brown people.
I like how whenever things are going badly for MAGA they’ll trot out a completely fake, five year old non-scandal. Needless to say, these no-longer-newly-declassified documents did not in fact reflect any problems with the Papadopoulos prosecution.
What steps are available though?
You ask. You file some paperwork with El Salvador. If the guy shows up then you let him in.
Are we supposed to expect the President to impose massive tariffs? Invade? What?
“You ask. You file some paperwork with El Salvador. If the guy shows up then you let him in.”
Yes, those are easily available first steps, to which the administration replies only, You Can’t Make Me!
Until they take actions easily available to them, well, former conservative Jennifer Rubin (OK, Mitt Romney conservative, but still) had it right this morning:
Trump could effortlessly prove Rubin wrong by taking in good faith, the simple steps you mention, thereby facilitating Abrego García’s return to the United States and returning us all to the status quo ante of the minute before they made their acknowledged administrative error.
That includes Abrego García in custody, but provided with the constitutional due process that is his, your, and my right. And that means the government must make the case in court (so far made only to the media), to overturn the currently applicable court judgement, with both sides testimony under oath subject to cross-examination, and entering their verifiable support into evidence before the court. If the government can make a convincing case, they can then legally deport him, even to El Salvador.
But Trump doesn’t want to do that. Because what he wants is, just like Bukele and Putin, the ability to create and hold his own political prisoners, no matter their constitutional rights. And, as he was recorded saying last week, not just non-citizens.
The guy hasn’t shown up to the US though.
Trump hasn’t asked. I don’t know what your point is. I assumed your steps were in order of actions taken?
1. Trump’s court-ordered facilitation is that he asks, in writing.
2. Agreement with El Salvador is documented.
3. Abrego García is released to U.S. authority, who takes custody and returns him to the U.S. territory, which means he’s shown up.
Proceed per “That includes Abrego García in custody…” above.
He asked verbally.
Just like the judge issued his order verbally.
Secondly – what if El Salvador does not agree?
And there is no ‘US authority’s outside of the US.
And how do you know he asked? El Salvador could certainly say no. But the point is that the US is supposed to at least try to get him released.
Incunabulum, you’re so consistently wrong you’re not even wrong, just a null return. Perhaps you’re another instantiation of rivabot…yeah, that would explain it.
The Associated Press obtained and released parts of the U.S. agreement with El Salvador, including:
So,
1) Trump has not asked, either verbally or in writing. Several times, DoJ has confirmed in court that the U.S. government has not asked for Abrego García’s release to U.S. authority.
2) El Salvador has already documented its consent to abide by the United States’ decision on their long term disposition
3) In addition to the normal diplomatic mission, U.S. authority is on the ground every time the Trump Administration lands another plane there and transfers a person from U.S. authority to Salvadorian authority.
That last is one of your silliest null-entry replies. Life’s too short to waste it on the type of nullity that’s all you’ve exhibit. I already have a couple archtypical examples of null-content commenters unblocked and don’t need another. Though I hold out little hope, will give you one more chance to to say something useful.
Remember way back to yesteryear, when the only job of the courts was to nullify actions of the other branches, NOT to order them to engage in diplomacy or declare war…?
In general, I don’t know how an American President can “ensure” that the citizen of another country who is currently in that country be sent to the US by the government of that other country.
I suppose the US could declare war on that country and send troops to go house to house, cave to cave, hovel to hovel looking for that person. However surely the US Constitution does not grant the courts the power to declare war or attack a sovereign nation that has not been belligerent to the US. Since the courts don’t have that power, surely they can’t acquire that power by ordering another branch (in this case the Executive) to do so.
Suppose a native born American citizen went to China and got arrested for being disrespectful to Xi. Later, in some kind of spy swap, China mistakenly sent that American citizen back to the US instead of one of the intended “spies”. Would US law even allow the US government to put that US citizen (who has committed no crime in the US) in chains and send them back to China without due process? I doubt it and certainly US public opinion would be overwhelmingly against it.
In this specific case I have few doubts that Trump could get Garcia back at a fairly low cost and I presume that Garcia wants to come back (although I’ve not heard if anyone has actually been in direct contact with him to verify that). But suppose El Salvador, believing the President is under a court order to get Garcia back at all costs, decides to seize the opportunity and sets a very high price for Garcia’s return – perhaps demanding $1T in exchange. The President has no lawful authority to liberate $1T from the US Treasury for this purpose and surely the courts can’t force the President to violate the Constitution. Similarly, surely the courts can’t force Congress to vote to appropriate funds to pay the $1T extortion demand (what would the courts do, hold any Senator voting against the appropriation in contempt which would be seem to be dancing up against A I, S 6 at a minimum).
BadLib — Reframe the issue. Is a president empowered without a declaration of war to order a military incursion to rescue Americans held illegally in foreign nations? Of course the President can do that. It has been done. So perhaps the courts do have power to order a president to do what lies within his power.
Thus, a better focus for the legal question in this particular case is whether the president’s Constitutional prerogative in foreign policy, and as commander in chief, comes with a power to ignore an otherwise legitimate court order to do something a president is empowered to do, but does not want to do.
If President Trump met resistance from El Salvador (a nonsense hypothetical to be sure), President Trump could crumble that resistance with nothing more than an ultimatum. Nobody thinks otherwise.
The correct course of action for SCOTUS is to halt all deportations flights to El Salvador until Abrego Garcia is released.
And anyone else who was sent there without due process.
Well, in fairness, the response was quite facile.
Mr. D.
Bondi came out and said it–“We don’t want him back.” What’s court gonna do? She’s telling Judge Xinis to fuck off.
I don’t understand why Mr. Somin thinks AG’s MS-13 membership needs to be relitigated.
An immigration court determined in 2019 AG could be deported as a member of MS-13.
The BIA agreed.
Though represented by counsel, AG did not appeal further to the Circuit Court.
At this point it should be res judicata.
Whatever “facilitate” may mean in this context, we know it is not “effectuate,” because Xinis used two separate words. SCOTUS asked her to clarify, bur apparently she hasn’t. They also told her to defer to the President’s authority in foreign policy. Apparently she hasn’t done that, either.
Here is what 95% if everybody I know says about you :
” Due process does not require giving a trial to 20 million people who broke into the country in violation of the law.”