The finding that he was a MS13 member was based on hearsay evidence from a confidential informant. That would not be admissible in a criminal trial. I don't know whether it would be admissible in a deportation hearing. It is entirely possible that he was an MS13 member and still is, was an MS13 member and no longer is, or never was an MS13 member.
That's why process matters. The government should put on its case for deportation, and he should be able to present a defense. They should both follow the normal rules of procedure and evidence (whatever they are) developed over the years to facilitate justice, not specially made up for this hearing. Either side dissatisfied with the result can appeal, as appropriate. And whatever the result is, that's it.
He was never charged for anything. The officer, Ivan Mendez, found him loitering at a Home Depot when he was approached by suspected gang members, who were also never charged (inferred from the fact that so far the DoJ and DHS have failed to provide supporting evidence that Abrego Garcia was ever even in contact with gang members).
The officer who was the source of the confidential intelligence, Ivan Mendez, pled guilty to leaking confidential intelligence in another case to a sex worker. "Mendez' name appeared on the "Do not call" list Braveboy released. Those are police deemed unreliable because of their disciplinary records, crimes or other alleged misconduct. If those officers are called to testify, prosecutors disclose the officer's history to the defense."
"Congress only checks the president by passing laws which the courts then uphold. But if the president can ignore the courts, then congress can no longer check the actions of the executive. At that point, the president could go out in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and would face no legal consequences."
This is false. You're leaving out both impeachment and power of the purse, among other checks congress has against the executive. I don't think you've fully thought through the separation of powers issue here and the additional constitutional remedies available.
I'm not sure how a president could ignore impeachment. If the whole process goes through and the Senate finds him guilty, then the President is automatically removed from office and no longer has any official power. Unless you're thinking of a scenario in which huge portions of the federal government and military are so loyal to the President that after he's removed from office they'll still follow his command, which would mean the breakdown of the constitutional order entirely, but that doesn't seem even remotely plausible in our context.
I'm not sure you'd need the military. I'd imagine the Capitol Police or Secret Service or some other guys would just escort him off the White House premises.
The Capitol Police might work, but the military might not—all Trump would have to do is declare a state of emergency, and then suddenly we’re in a legitimacy crisis.
The Secret Service answers to the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is currently Kristi Noem…
1- The Supreme Court didn't "command" the administration to return the man. They ordered them to "facilitate" the return, which could be interpreted as providing an airplane and not stopping the man at the border, should the Salvadoran government decide to return him.
2- Garcia isn't exactly "innocent". He is a Salvadoran citizen who entered the US illegally.
3- Garcia was found by the courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals to be a gang member. In fact, the court ruling that said he cannot be deported reasoned that he might be targeted by rival gangs if returned to El Salvador.
I agree what the administration is doing is dangerous and flirting with unlawfulness, but the most high-profile cases such as Garcia are often not a good indication of what's wrong with the administration's process.
1. This really seems like hair splitting. If they're ordered to facilitate his return and they ignore the order, then they're violating the court order.
2. That's true, but he'd been temporarily granted the legal right to be here.
1- It's not hair splitting. The article I linked explains it better than I could. The courts haven't clarified what they mean by "facilitate" and until they do, the administration can claim they are facilitating (e.g. by offering a flight).
2- But he wasn't granted the legal right to be here. The courts prevented him from being deported to El Salvador specifically.
3- Regardless of what we think about the evidence, a court and an immigration board found the evidence sufficient. That's how the system is supposed to work. There are plenty of court rulings that individuals might find unfair.
The judge ordered the administration to update her daily on what they were doing to try to get him back. A good start might be asking for him back—perhaps one opportunity could have been when Bukele was sitting in the Oval Office.
"At a meeting in the Oval Office on Monday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested the government had satisfied that order by offering a plane to bring Abrego Garcia back but, in the same room, El Salvador's president Nayib Bukele refused to allow it."
1. Is a horrible misconstrual of what the SC ruled. 2. Is true. 3. Is deceptive and doesn't make sense even if true because the finding was during Trump's first term, and not even the relevant authorities deported him based on the evidence then. I will respond more in depth later in the day.
>1- The Supreme Court didn't "command" the administration to return the man.
This is ambiguous. They did not literally command the federal government to return the man. But they did say (emphasis mine):
"The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release FROM CUSTODY IN EL SALVADOR and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador... For its part, the Government SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHARE what it can concerning the steps it has taken AND THE PROSPECT OF FURTHER STEPS."
So far, the Trump administration has not complied with even sharing information about the flights or the deal between Bukele and Trump. See this (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/#entry-81) memorandum opinion from Boasberg in the Alien Enemies Trial detailing their stonewalling and why he will be holding contempt hearings for disobeying his order to turn the planes around. (Relent outtake: "they asserted for the first time that they were considering invoking the state-secrets privilege over the flight details and needed more time to make that determination. See id. at 3–4. The Court was “unsure” how answering its five questions could “jeopardize state secrets” — Defendants, after all, had publicly shared images of the flights making them trackable and had still not claimed that the questions bore on any classified information.")
Indeed, it looks like the Cabinet members were not even made aware of the court order. In the Trump-Bukele meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6iphPzEGtw), Bukele falsely called Garcia a terrorist, despite the federal government not even securing any charges against him. Stephen Miller lied and called him an MS-13 member and later on Fox News said (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/president-el-salvador-wont-return-deported-man-kilmar-abrego-garcia-rcna201136) that Abrego Garcia would just be deported again if he came back to the US. He also lied during the meeting and said the Supreme Court ruled that the district court had no jurisdiction - this is blatantly false as even the purely textual reading of the Supreme Court opinion plainly stated that the district court’s order remains in effect.
>They ordered them to "facilitate" the return, which could be interpreted as providing an airplane and not stopping the man at the border, should the Salvadoran government decide to return him.
It could not be reasonably interpreted that way. For one, the concurring opinion said:
"Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an “oversight.” Decl. of R. Cerna in No. 25–cv–951 (D Md., Mar. 31, 2025), ECF Doc. 11–3, p. 3. The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoranprison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008)...
Moreover, it has been the Government’s own well-established policy to “facilitate [an] alien’s return to the United States if . . . the alien’s presence is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” in cases where a noncitizen has been removed pending immigration proceedings. See U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Directive 11061.1, Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens, §2 (Feb. 24, 2012)."
““Facilitate” is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly
clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 (“The Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive. Cf. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024); Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is “remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia’s] return,” Mot. for Stay at 2, is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.
“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. “Facilitation” does not
sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would “facilitate” foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood."
>2- Garcia isn't exactly "innocent". He is a Salvadoran citizen who entered the US illegally.
This is true; however the Trump administration cited no lawful basis for his removal. He was also deprived of due process rights. And renditioned to a foreign prison. All of these are far more exceptional than his immigration status.
>3- Garcia was found by the courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals to be a gang member.
He was not found by Article 3 courts to be a gang member. He was denied bond by immigration judges who work under the discretion of the Attorney General for being a threat to the community. The primary evidence admitted was Prince George's County Police Department field interview sheet (https://wtop.com/maryland/2025/04/lawyer-document-labeling-abrego-garcia-as-a-gang-member-written-by-fired-prince-georges-co-officer/) - filed by Ivan Mendez who one month later was accused of leaking confidential info to a sex worker and pled guilty to it later (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2025/04/17/maryland-police-officer-report-abrego-garcia-prison/83141240007/). He was put on “the "Do not call" list Braveboy released. Those are police deemed unreliable because of their disciplinary records, crimes or other alleged misconduct. If those officers are called to testify, prosecutors disclose the officer's history to the defense.” It’s in Article 3 courts where judges actually rule whether the immigration judges and Attorney General and other people involved in the immigration trial ruled correctly.
Furthermore, this happened around 2019, during Trump’s first administration. The claims that he are a gang member are simply not credible due to the available evidence and the lack of steps the Trump admin took towards deporting him in his first term. Also the whole failure to cite any law they applied in his deportation.
>the court ruling that said he cannot be deported reasoned that he might be targeted by rival gangs if returned to El Salvador.
The court ruling said he would be targeted by gangs because his family was targeted in the past, not that he was part of a rival gang and would be targeted due to his membership. Page 10. This is just wrong.
>I agree what the administration is doing is dangerous and flirting with unlawfulness
It’s not flirting. From the Supreme Court opinion:
“The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.”
I agree that the administration is being evasive and arguably acting in bad faith, but this is a particularly complicated case, because this person is a Salvadoran citizen and has no legal status in the US. If the government of El Salvador decides to release them, presumably the US would give them an airplane and wouldn't stop them at the border. But since he's a Salvadoran citizen, isn't that up to the Salvadoran government to decide?
Aren't there other cases among the 300 who were deported that are simpler? People who are not Salvadoran citizens, do have legal status in the US, and/or weren't found to be gang members. Those would be more clear-cut cases for determining whether the rule of law is being respected or not.
What a bunch a crap ! How many time have you”court orders” be ignored ? Joe ignored them all & so did ERIC HOLDER IGNOR SENATE SUPENA YET HE DIDNT GO TO PRISON LIKE BANNON
Appeals court unanimously shut down the Trump admin's appeal that they don't have to do anything about Abrego Garcia re the Supreme Court's order. If they appeal to Supreme Court we could see another order against the Trump admin as early as tomorrow since nothing has changed substantially in the case; although that would be quicker than they've been ruling recently (~3-5 days).
It’ll be hilarious to see all the “constitutional conservatives” wail and moan when a Dem administration tells their pet FedSoc judges in TX (eg Kacsmaryk) to get fucked.
The president is not wholly unchecked, even if he ignores judges. I can think of three checks that do not depend on the president obeying court orders.
First, Congress can refuse to fund or authorize debt for the government. The king’s thugs don’t work for free. Now, you might say that Trump would declare that, when Congress fails to budget, last year’s budget rolls over. Similarly, Trump could ignore a debt limit. Although he could take these step, they would scare the bond market, thereby increasing the government’s cost of servicing its debt. Bondholders would demand higher rates for dubiously authorized debt. But also, 1b, Congress could repeal laws authorizing collection of funds through taxes or other means. If Trump unilaterally re-imposed federal taxes, he would suffer politically in way that would split his anti tax base. Also, he’s gutted the IRS, so good luck collecting illegal taxes. Of course, here, Trump would selectively starve parts of the government, saving his thugs for last. The administration would also turn to non-tax revenue, like patent fees on monopolies, and taxes that are easier to illegally collect like tariffs. However, these taxes are economically destructive and will shirk the taxable base dramatically. Basically, we would starve the Trump state of revenue both legally and mechanically.
Second, courts can YOLO dismiss every non-Trump federal prosecution and enforcement action. This refusal would feed into the revenue check because Trump would have to work around the courts to extract illegal revenue. It seems extreme, but this is also how the exclusionary rule works. When the government collects evidence from an illegal search or seizure, that evidence can be used against the person whose rights were violated. Basically, because the Trump administration is generally illegal, so are all of its prosecutions and enforcement actions.
Third, we have the states. Suppose Trump turns to stealing to keep his thugs paid. States can arrest the thieves. But states can’t arrest federal agents, you say? And who decided that: the federal courts. Well, one, the federal courts can change their mind and, two, if Trump openly defies the federal courts, then states will feel emboldened to do the same against him.
In sum, we can starve the federal government for funds, pressure courts to refuse do cooperate with anything stemming from Trump administration, and have our state governments arrest federal agents when they try to thug-out. They all work together to frustrate a would-be King. Of course, all of these actions are lose-lose, but would be worth doing to prevent monarchy. In any case, judges were never deities outside of the political system but rather were always part of it. They stood in for hypothetical mass resistance as described above. If we are incapable of that resistance, as a society, judges were always fake and never were worth the robes they wear.
What? I explained how distributed actors could check a lawless president. The actors don’t have to be united but of course unity would help. And on the other hand, if people are general fine with Trump or otherwise unwilling to get uncomfortable then yes of course Trump get away with his bs.
You aren't going to find very many judges or lawmakers willing to subordinate federal law to state law because most of them are leftists who just want a leftist president to smash state laws against trans women in bathrooms or states doing anything to stop immigration.
"Nothing you just posted"...you mean, the actual facts of this case, as opposed to emotive whining?
And this scum has gotten due process. He is an El Salvadoran gangbanger, and he is receiving the "due process" of his native land. Which would be shocking for Americans, but has turned El Salvador from a hellscape into a living and happy nation practically overnight, with a president with an unheard-of near 90% approval rating.
Yes, the Trump administration is flouting the judiciary. And while 99/100 times I would oppose them, here I support them. Here's why:
There are ~20 million RECENT illegal immigrants, on top of the ones who have become "pillars of the community" for the last generation. We want these people gone.
Suppose it is the case that each and every one of them is entitled to a habeas hearing, in a court of the judicial branch. In that case, the borders are effectively open, and the rule of law ceases to be enforceable on the issue of illegal immigration.
It's a paradox, like the paradox of tolerance. There is only one answer, and that is for the Trump administration to push this stuff back up to SCOTUS and get a determination that circumscribes the rights of illegals, and allows the executive branch to meet its "due process" obligations by having some sort of ad-hoc hearing within ICE prior to deportation.
It seems that this is what the administration is pushing for, and as an American citizen, they have my support.
As I said in the linked comment, the primary source for the "confidential intelligence" that Abrego Garcia was a gang member was Ivan Mendez, who one month after delivering the CI was charged for leaking CI to a sex worker, pled guilty to it, and was placed on a list that marks former informants as unreliable when giving testimony in court. Also, as the appeals court unanimously noted:
"The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported."
This is paywalled but I'm happy to respond to anything you can provide from the paywall because it's almost assuredly horseshit. None of the evidence supports that doing nothing is what the Supreme Court meant by facilitate. And the Trump admin literally said in court Abrego Garcia's removal was an error - not based in law or criminal history.
This isn't the first time a president has asserted the perogative to ignore the courts. Lincoln did the same in the Civil War. Personally, I think the courts should be taken as merely advisory towards executive power, the power of judicial review they granted themselves with Marbury v Madison was a clear judicial coup, the results of which can be taken away by unilateral action in the opposite direction.
if laws made by congress are not enforced through review, those laws are moot. the creation of judicial review was politically motivated, sure—but without judicial review there are no checks & balances.
lincoln was different. his suspension of habeas corpus was during the civil war. the trump admin has ignored very basic court orders during peacetime.
They're currently giving it 32% odds that he will end democracy, and there's 391 people betting on it. It would be cool if you registered your prediction on there (and anyone who is reading this too). It's very easy, takes like a minute I would say, they give you 1000 of their play money when you sign up.
No idea how you got that conclusion from my post. But yeah, the market could resolve very quickly if Trump ends up taking one of the actions that will be counted as resolving to yes.
Here's the link to the actual documents in the 2019 case.
https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1396906/dl
The finding that he was a MS13 member was based on hearsay evidence from a confidential informant. That would not be admissible in a criminal trial. I don't know whether it would be admissible in a deportation hearing. It is entirely possible that he was an MS13 member and still is, was an MS13 member and no longer is, or never was an MS13 member.
That's why process matters. The government should put on its case for deportation, and he should be able to present a defense. They should both follow the normal rules of procedure and evidence (whatever they are) developed over the years to facilitate justice, not specially made up for this hearing. Either side dissatisfied with the result can appeal, as appropriate. And whatever the result is, that's it.
He was never charged for anything. The officer, Ivan Mendez, found him loitering at a Home Depot when he was approached by suspected gang members, who were also never charged (inferred from the fact that so far the DoJ and DHS have failed to provide supporting evidence that Abrego Garcia was ever even in contact with gang members).
https://wtop.com/maryland/2025/04/lawyer-document-labeling-abrego-garcia-as-a-gang-member-written-by-fired-prince-georges-co-officer/
The officer who was the source of the confidential intelligence, Ivan Mendez, pled guilty to leaking confidential intelligence in another case to a sex worker. "Mendez' name appeared on the "Do not call" list Braveboy released. Those are police deemed unreliable because of their disciplinary records, crimes or other alleged misconduct. If those officers are called to testify, prosecutors disclose the officer's history to the defense."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2025/04/17/maryland-police-officer-report-abrego-garcia-prison/83141240007/
"Congress only checks the president by passing laws which the courts then uphold. But if the president can ignore the courts, then congress can no longer check the actions of the executive. At that point, the president could go out in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot someone and would face no legal consequences."
This is false. You're leaving out both impeachment and power of the purse, among other checks congress has against the executive. I don't think you've fully thought through the separation of powers issue here and the additional constitutional remedies available.
Couldn’t Trump just ignore a lot of those things, though?
I'm not sure how a president could ignore impeachment. If the whole process goes through and the Senate finds him guilty, then the President is automatically removed from office and no longer has any official power. Unless you're thinking of a scenario in which huge portions of the federal government and military are so loyal to the President that after he's removed from office they'll still follow his command, which would mean the breakdown of the constitutional order entirely, but that doesn't seem even remotely plausible in our context.
So when impeachment happens, the military is required to force him to leave?
Though the GOP senate is so loyal I doubt that he can be removed.
I'm not sure you'd need the military. I'd imagine the Capitol Police or Secret Service or some other guys would just escort him off the White House premises.
The Capitol Police might work, but the military might not—all Trump would have to do is declare a state of emergency, and then suddenly we’re in a legitimacy crisis.
The Secret Service answers to the Secretary of Homeland Security, who is currently Kristi Noem…
Several factual inaccuracies here:
1- The Supreme Court didn't "command" the administration to return the man. They ordered them to "facilitate" the return, which could be interpreted as providing an airplane and not stopping the man at the border, should the Salvadoran government decide to return him.
2- Garcia isn't exactly "innocent". He is a Salvadoran citizen who entered the US illegally.
3- Garcia was found by the courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals to be a gang member. In fact, the court ruling that said he cannot be deported reasoned that he might be targeted by rival gangs if returned to El Salvador.
https://www.thefp.com/p/trump-supreme-court-deportations
I agree what the administration is doing is dangerous and flirting with unlawfulness, but the most high-profile cases such as Garcia are often not a good indication of what's wrong with the administration's process.
1. This really seems like hair splitting. If they're ordered to facilitate his return and they ignore the order, then they're violating the court order.
2. That's true, but he'd been temporarily granted the legal right to be here.
3. The evidence for him being a gang member seems super flimsy https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-administration-lies-kilmar-abrego-garcia-explained-1235318906/
1- It's not hair splitting. The article I linked explains it better than I could. The courts haven't clarified what they mean by "facilitate" and until they do, the administration can claim they are facilitating (e.g. by offering a flight).
2- But he wasn't granted the legal right to be here. The courts prevented him from being deported to El Salvador specifically.
3- Regardless of what we think about the evidence, a court and an immigration board found the evidence sufficient. That's how the system is supposed to work. There are plenty of court rulings that individuals might find unfair.
The judge ordered the administration to update her daily on what they were doing to try to get him back. A good start might be asking for him back—perhaps one opportunity could have been when Bukele was sitting in the Oval Office.
"At a meeting in the Oval Office on Monday, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi suggested the government had satisfied that order by offering a plane to bring Abrego Garcia back but, in the same room, El Salvador's president Nayib Bukele refused to allow it."
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-defiant-supreme-court-ruling-favor-salvador-stephen-miller-pam-bondi-2059822
Thanks, you're right.
1. Is a horrible misconstrual of what the SC ruled. 2. Is true. 3. Is deceptive and doesn't make sense even if true because the finding was during Trump's first term, and not even the relevant authorities deported him based on the evidence then. I will respond more in depth later in the day.
>1- The Supreme Court didn't "command" the administration to return the man.
This is ambiguous. They did not literally command the federal government to return the man. But they did say (emphasis mine):
"The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release FROM CUSTODY IN EL SALVADOR and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador... For its part, the Government SHOULD BE PREPARED TO SHARE what it can concerning the steps it has taken AND THE PROSPECT OF FURTHER STEPS."
So far, the Trump administration has not complied with even sharing information about the flights or the deal between Bukele and Trump. See this (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69741724/jgg-v-trump/#entry-81) memorandum opinion from Boasberg in the Alien Enemies Trial detailing their stonewalling and why he will be holding contempt hearings for disobeying his order to turn the planes around. (Relent outtake: "they asserted for the first time that they were considering invoking the state-secrets privilege over the flight details and needed more time to make that determination. See id. at 3–4. The Court was “unsure” how answering its five questions could “jeopardize state secrets” — Defendants, after all, had publicly shared images of the flights making them trackable and had still not claimed that the questions bore on any classified information.")
Indeed, it looks like the Cabinet members were not even made aware of the court order. In the Trump-Bukele meeting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6iphPzEGtw), Bukele falsely called Garcia a terrorist, despite the federal government not even securing any charges against him. Stephen Miller lied and called him an MS-13 member and later on Fox News said (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/president-el-salvador-wont-return-deported-man-kilmar-abrego-garcia-rcna201136) that Abrego Garcia would just be deported again if he came back to the US. He also lied during the meeting and said the Supreme Court ruled that the district court had no jurisdiction - this is blatantly false as even the purely textual reading of the Supreme Court opinion plainly stated that the district court’s order remains in effect.
>They ordered them to "facilitate" the return, which could be interpreted as providing an airplane and not stopping the man at the border, should the Salvadoran government decide to return him.
It could not be reasonably interpreted that way. For one, the concurring opinion said:
"Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an “oversight.” Decl. of R. Cerna in No. 25–cv–951 (D Md., Mar. 31, 2025), ECF Doc. 11–3, p. 3. The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoranprison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008)...
Moreover, it has been the Government’s own well-established policy to “facilitate [an] alien’s return to the United States if . . . the alien’s presence is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” in cases where a noncitizen has been removed pending immigration proceedings. See U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Directive 11061.1, Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens, §2 (Feb. 24, 2012)."
Further, after trying to argue just your point, the appeals court ruled unanimously about this argument from the Trump administration (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69902650/8/kilmar-abrego-garcia-v-kristi-noem/):
““Facilitate” is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken as the Supreme Court has made perfectly
clear. See Abrego Garcia, supra, slip op. at 2 (“The Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.”). The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art. We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by an administrative agency and contained in a mere policy directive. Cf. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 400 (2024); Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000). Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is “remove any domestic barriers to [Abrego Garcia’s] return,” Mot. for Stay at 2, is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.
“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. “Facilitation” does not
sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would “facilitate” foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood."
>2- Garcia isn't exactly "innocent". He is a Salvadoran citizen who entered the US illegally.
This is true; however the Trump administration cited no lawful basis for his removal. He was also deprived of due process rights. And renditioned to a foreign prison. All of these are far more exceptional than his immigration status.
>3- Garcia was found by the courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals to be a gang member.
He was not found by Article 3 courts to be a gang member. He was denied bond by immigration judges who work under the discretion of the Attorney General for being a threat to the community. The primary evidence admitted was Prince George's County Police Department field interview sheet (https://wtop.com/maryland/2025/04/lawyer-document-labeling-abrego-garcia-as-a-gang-member-written-by-fired-prince-georges-co-officer/) - filed by Ivan Mendez who one month later was accused of leaking confidential info to a sex worker and pled guilty to it later (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2025/04/17/maryland-police-officer-report-abrego-garcia-prison/83141240007/). He was put on “the "Do not call" list Braveboy released. Those are police deemed unreliable because of their disciplinary records, crimes or other alleged misconduct. If those officers are called to testify, prosecutors disclose the officer's history to the defense.” It’s in Article 3 courts where judges actually rule whether the immigration judges and Attorney General and other people involved in the immigration trial ruled correctly.
Furthermore, this happened around 2019, during Trump’s first administration. The claims that he are a gang member are simply not credible due to the available evidence and the lack of steps the Trump admin took towards deporting him in his first term. Also the whole failure to cite any law they applied in his deportation.
>the court ruling that said he cannot be deported reasoned that he might be targeted by rival gangs if returned to El Salvador.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.1.1_4.pdf
The court ruling said he would be targeted by gangs because his family was targeted in the past, not that he was part of a rival gang and would be targeted due to his membership. Page 10. This is just wrong.
>I agree what the administration is doing is dangerous and flirting with unlawfulness
It’s not flirting. From the Supreme Court opinion:
“The United States acknowledges that Abrego Garcia was subject to a withholding order forbidding his removal to El Salvador, and that the removal to El Salvador was therefore illegal.”
1) is a question of compliance. What you’re describing is malicious compliance - a token gesture that none of us take seriously.
I agree that the administration is being evasive and arguably acting in bad faith, but this is a particularly complicated case, because this person is a Salvadoran citizen and has no legal status in the US. If the government of El Salvador decides to release them, presumably the US would give them an airplane and wouldn't stop them at the border. But since he's a Salvadoran citizen, isn't that up to the Salvadoran government to decide?
Aren't there other cases among the 300 who were deported that are simpler? People who are not Salvadoran citizens, do have legal status in the US, and/or weren't found to be gang members. Those would be more clear-cut cases for determining whether the rule of law is being respected or not.
What a bunch a crap ! How many time have you”court orders” be ignored ? Joe ignored them all & so did ERIC HOLDER IGNOR SENATE SUPENA YET HE DIDNT GO TO PRISON LIKE BANNON
Which court orders did Biden ignore?
You on your meds?
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69902650/kilmar-abrego-garcia-v-kristi-noem/#entry-8
Appeals court unanimously shut down the Trump admin's appeal that they don't have to do anything about Abrego Garcia re the Supreme Court's order. If they appeal to Supreme Court we could see another order against the Trump admin as early as tomorrow since nothing has changed substantially in the case; although that would be quicker than they've been ruling recently (~3-5 days).
It’ll be hilarious to see all the “constitutional conservatives” wail and moan when a Dem administration tells their pet FedSoc judges in TX (eg Kacsmaryk) to get fucked.
Where do you get your Bull 💩?
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 your stupidity is unchecked.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 your stupidity is unchecked.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 your stupidity is unchecked.
The president is not wholly unchecked, even if he ignores judges. I can think of three checks that do not depend on the president obeying court orders.
First, Congress can refuse to fund or authorize debt for the government. The king’s thugs don’t work for free. Now, you might say that Trump would declare that, when Congress fails to budget, last year’s budget rolls over. Similarly, Trump could ignore a debt limit. Although he could take these step, they would scare the bond market, thereby increasing the government’s cost of servicing its debt. Bondholders would demand higher rates for dubiously authorized debt. But also, 1b, Congress could repeal laws authorizing collection of funds through taxes or other means. If Trump unilaterally re-imposed federal taxes, he would suffer politically in way that would split his anti tax base. Also, he’s gutted the IRS, so good luck collecting illegal taxes. Of course, here, Trump would selectively starve parts of the government, saving his thugs for last. The administration would also turn to non-tax revenue, like patent fees on monopolies, and taxes that are easier to illegally collect like tariffs. However, these taxes are economically destructive and will shirk the taxable base dramatically. Basically, we would starve the Trump state of revenue both legally and mechanically.
Second, courts can YOLO dismiss every non-Trump federal prosecution and enforcement action. This refusal would feed into the revenue check because Trump would have to work around the courts to extract illegal revenue. It seems extreme, but this is also how the exclusionary rule works. When the government collects evidence from an illegal search or seizure, that evidence can be used against the person whose rights were violated. Basically, because the Trump administration is generally illegal, so are all of its prosecutions and enforcement actions.
Third, we have the states. Suppose Trump turns to stealing to keep his thugs paid. States can arrest the thieves. But states can’t arrest federal agents, you say? And who decided that: the federal courts. Well, one, the federal courts can change their mind and, two, if Trump openly defies the federal courts, then states will feel emboldened to do the same against him.
In sum, we can starve the federal government for funds, pressure courts to refuse do cooperate with anything stemming from Trump administration, and have our state governments arrest federal agents when they try to thug-out. They all work together to frustrate a would-be King. Of course, all of these actions are lose-lose, but would be worth doing to prevent monarchy. In any case, judges were never deities outside of the political system but rather were always part of it. They stood in for hypothetical mass resistance as described above. If we are incapable of that resistance, as a society, judges were always fake and never were worth the robes they wear.
There is no united "we" that would ever agree to uphold state laws over federal laws and federal jurisdiction.
What? I explained how distributed actors could check a lawless president. The actors don’t have to be united but of course unity would help. And on the other hand, if people are general fine with Trump or otherwise unwilling to get uncomfortable then yes of course Trump get away with his bs.
You aren't going to find very many judges or lawmakers willing to subordinate federal law to state law because most of them are leftists who just want a leftist president to smash state laws against trans women in bathrooms or states doing anything to stop immigration.
Sorry. You do you not know what you are talking about:
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/16/kilmar-abrego-garcia-ms-13-gang-member-history-violence
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14619675/white-house-violent-past-maryland-man-kilmar-abrego-garcia.html
And I see other commenters correcting you on what you think SCOUTS "commanded", but here's a helpful explainer:
https://www.thefp.com/p/trump-supreme-court-deportations
Nothing you just posted justifies denying due process and imposing cruel and unusual punishment. This is just a poor smokescreen.
Doing nothing and lying about the ruling is defiance of the court.
This is absolutely ridiculous.
"Nothing you just posted"...you mean, the actual facts of this case, as opposed to emotive whining?
And this scum has gotten due process. He is an El Salvadoran gangbanger, and he is receiving the "due process" of his native land. Which would be shocking for Americans, but has turned El Salvador from a hellscape into a living and happy nation practically overnight, with a president with an unheard-of near 90% approval rating.
Yes, the Trump administration is flouting the judiciary. And while 99/100 times I would oppose them, here I support them. Here's why:
There are ~20 million RECENT illegal immigrants, on top of the ones who have become "pillars of the community" for the last generation. We want these people gone.
Suppose it is the case that each and every one of them is entitled to a habeas hearing, in a court of the judicial branch. In that case, the borders are effectively open, and the rule of law ceases to be enforceable on the issue of illegal immigration.
It's a paradox, like the paradox of tolerance. There is only one answer, and that is for the Trump administration to push this stuff back up to SCOTUS and get a determination that circumscribes the rights of illegals, and allows the executive branch to meet its "due process" obligations by having some sort of ad-hoc hearing within ICE prior to deportation.
It seems that this is what the administration is pushing for, and as an American citizen, they have my support.
Those are about half the facts, heavily spun by a supremely corrupt DHS.
You don't care about the rule of law or your Constitution.
You're a ridiculous person and people like you will allow the united states to become a braindrained authoritarian mess.
Good luck!
>There are ~20 million RECENT illegal immigrants
What is your source for this? The upper bound on total illegal immigrants living in the US has been 10-15 million for decades. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/07/22/what-we-know-about-unauthorized-immigrants-living-in-the-us/ https://cmsny.org/us-undocumented-population-increased-in-july-2023-warren-090624/ What econometric anomalies have there been recently that have resulted from an influx of 20 million illegal immigrants on the US economy, government, healthcare system etc? My wager is that there is none because you have to be utterly detached from reality to think that we tripled the estimated illegal immigrants in the US over the past few years.
See my just posted comment for why you are wrong. https://open.substack.com/pub/benthams/p/violating-court-orders-is-a-threat?r=1r9dwz&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=109879072
>https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/04/16/kilmar-abrego-garcia-ms-13-gang-member-history-violence
As I said in the linked comment, the primary source for the "confidential intelligence" that Abrego Garcia was a gang member was Ivan Mendez, who one month after delivering the CI was charged for leaking CI to a sex worker, pled guilty to it, and was placed on a list that marks former informants as unreliable when giving testimony in court. Also, as the appeals court unanimously noted:
"The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported."
>https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14619675/white-house-violent-past-maryland-man-kilmar-abrego-garcia.html
He was never convicted for this and the case was dropped.
>https://www.thefp.com/p/trump-supreme-court-deportations
This is paywalled but I'm happy to respond to anything you can provide from the paywall because it's almost assuredly horseshit. None of the evidence supports that doing nothing is what the Supreme Court meant by facilitate. And the Trump admin literally said in court Abrego Garcia's removal was an error - not based in law or criminal history.
Remember Andrew Jackson?
This isn't the first time a president has asserted the perogative to ignore the courts. Lincoln did the same in the Civil War. Personally, I think the courts should be taken as merely advisory towards executive power, the power of judicial review they granted themselves with Marbury v Madison was a clear judicial coup, the results of which can be taken away by unilateral action in the opposite direction.
if laws made by congress are not enforced through review, those laws are moot. the creation of judicial review was politically motivated, sure—but without judicial review there are no checks & balances.
lincoln was different. his suspension of habeas corpus was during the civil war. the trump admin has ignored very basic court orders during peacetime.
This market still hasn't resolved:
Will Trump 2.0 be the end of Democracy as we know it?
https://manifold.markets/JRR/if-trump-wins-the-2024-election-wil-877b62a380ec
They're currently giving it 32% odds that he will end democracy, and there's 391 people betting on it. It would be cool if you registered your prediction on there (and anyone who is reading this too). It's very easy, takes like a minute I would say, they give you 1000 of their play money when you sign up.
Do you really expect to market to be “resolved” in this short window time ? How foolish of you to assert that is should do
No idea how you got that conclusion from my post. But yeah, the market could resolve very quickly if Trump ends up taking one of the actions that will be counted as resolving to yes.
haven't gotten to read yet but typo in subtitle jsyk
Thanks, fixed