How one reads Thursday's ruling ordering the federal government to "facilitate" Abrego Garcia's return depends upon how much (or how little) one expects *this* administration to turn square corners.
What a horrific situation for Mr. Garcia and his family. If our government is paying El Salvador to house deportees I would assume our government would have access to their government, prison officials to communicate and return Mr. Garcia to the U.S. . The whole deportation did not follow the law, and I believe the government knew that but continued to just disappear people. It is very frightening to think they have the power to do this, meaning it could happen to you or me.
Has America been sold to the highest bidder?
Prayers to the Garcia family and hope this gets resolved with a safe return.☮️❤️🇺🇸
This, plus the increasing risk of a recession, as well as global anger, seems to be decimating the travel industry, as well.
Yesterday, on the news, they showed largely empty airports in the USA, relatively speaking, and an executive from Delta was giving a perspective. I guess this may be one area that may see a decline in price. Sadly, this often means lost jobs, as well.
This was all unnecessary, unless the intent is to terrorize the public.
The intent, in almost everything this "administration" (better labeled a regime) does, is to terrorize the public into silence and obedience. It is the authoritarian playbook. In the instance of immigrants, the intent is to terrorize them enough so that they'll "self-deport". After all, better that than being sent to a foreign gulag to rot in perpetuity.
That you even ask the question “Has America been sold to the highest bidder?” suggests two things in response - merely asking the question makes it so . . . and - it was sold to the only bidder!
Has America been sold to the highest bidder? Answer: YES. Witness 1: Charles Swabb in the oval the other day when the some tariffs were paused DJT “Chuck you just made $9B on that move, didn’t you?” 2. All the cryptocurrency contributions he & family get from foreign actors/investors. 3. Elon Musk awarding himself government contracts at FAA, etc.
There's a (spectacular) movie called "The Dancer Upstairs." An important part of the premise is that there's a revolution going on in some (unnamed and unspecified) Latin American country, but it's not an all out and declared revolution. It's a series of destructive acts intended to corrode the standing government, and install a character called "President Ezekiel."
In that same sense, the current US government is corroding the United States one piecemeal act after another. And it includes, as you quote, cracks like an expression of doubt that a US judge has any authority over the leader of some other country. The nexus is omitted: how did Garcia get to that other country? Doesn't the US Executive branch bear entire responsibility for that placement, and isn't it then responsible to be more lawful, and more likely correct, about such transfers? But the deck, as you partially imply, is stacked against the people of the United States, because "regularity" has been suspended, no longer exists, and its absence is supported by the current Legislative and Judicial branches.
If nothing else, the court should hold regular short term status conferences to force the administration to repeatedly and publicly say or not say what it is or is not doing to effectuate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia. Whatever they say or not say will be enlightening. Silence - by long intervals of not asking - is not an option.
The news media needs to hire more experts in law as well as economics and not just English and journalism majors.
Too often they just "rinse and repeat" what others are saying, thinking that is the safe bet and thus cause more confusion. I do not have cable so I do not know what CNN reported and find their online coverage often lacking some depth, so not sure what they said there either.
When the media says "a win" for X, Y or Z, it is often misleading since that may not actually be the case when one looks under the hood, and I am not a legal mechanic, so thanks.
I am not a lawyer and I understand that wiggle room allowed with facilitate and effectuate. The justice dept with its statement drove a semi through it. Shame!!
The Supreme Court's claim that the scope of "effectuate" needs clarification seems like chickening out. For example, Merriam-Webster defines it as "to cause or bring about (something) : to put (something) into effect or operation ". Are there really any other meanings that could apply in this context?
Thank you and wow. Walks Roberts’ line of seeming to protect institutional democracy while trying on the unitary executive pursuing a Christian white nationalist agenda in a dimly lit room to demonstrate that it seems like a pretty good fit. Yikes.
To speak in (some) defense of Justice Roberts et al., the administration's bad faith conduct also means that the Court can't be confident a direct order will be followed, and if Trump gets away with explicitly disregarding even a single order, that's presumably the ballgame. So part of the strategy here, it seems to me, is to bend over backwards for the administration to avoid any such confrontation or, at a minimum, build up sufficient track record to weather the inevitable political attacks that will follow.
I find it hard to imagine that the Trump administration will agree to follow the law in this case. Their statements and their use of CECOT prison in El Salvador make it perfectly clear that their intention is to evade oversight by the judicial branch.
The Supreme Court justices had better don their holsters. The ultimate showdown is coming soon. The outcome will reveal whether we are still living in a democracy or if we are now in a tyranny where even U.S. citizens can be "disappeared" to foreign prisons without trial or redress.
I appreciate the good faith and strategic thinking, but I wonder what you (since he’s not here to speak for himself) think Roberts’ endgame is. Is he trying (1) simply to avoid direct confrontation with the administration and so just protecting the courts from a fight the courts cannot win, (2) to protect the rule of law by essentially making it harder for the administration to « disobey » and a full blown constitutional crisis thus less likely, or (3) to stay out of the political arena by putting government action in a light (i.e. determining it be unconstitutional or illegal) that conjures a political response from citizens? In short, is he primarily protecting his turf, the administration, or (the semblance of) the rule of law ?
I don't think those are mutually exclusive, and in some ways they're actually complementary. Legally speaking, a novel 5-4 decision in favor of an unsympathetic litigant is just as binding as an unambiguous 9-0 decision with overwhelming public opinion behind it, but as a practical matter Trump is much more likely to win the former showdown than the latter if he wants to. So the calculation, I assume, is to protect the Court's reputation and relationship with the Administration by ducking the marginal fights (or throwing Trump the occasional bone, as they did here in Abrego Garcia), so that it's on the strongest possible footing if and when confrontation becomes unavoidable.
This is a very good point and seems quite consistent with how Roberts in particular has been behaving. Allowing the administration to continue at least claiming to respect the system does indeed help avoid or delay an explicit constitutional crisis.
Of course, however, it leaves us with an implicit one instead. If the court itself has to simply play the game to uphold the optics of the rule of law, then it has de facto already lost the power to check the executive branch. In effect, the court has averted an open constitutional crisis by giving up in advance. And maybe that really is their best move insofar as it keeps the door open for future administrations to return to baseline.
This ruling is much better than the other one. The most important part of it is going to turn out to be the requirement that the Administration provide information on its efforts to facilitate. No, they aren't going to get away with a conclusory, false "there's nothing we can do" declaration. If they do that they're going to end up with people on the witness stand being questioned by the judge. And you have to lay a foundation for the state secrets privilege that simply can't be laid here.
What's actually going to happen is this one is going to work. The Administration will either in the short or long term realize they are boxed in by the requirement to provide real information, and will capitulate and get the guy out.
Does anybody know the legal ”brains” behind the Trump administration? They seem to be threading the needle in a way that infers strategy? And I can’t imagine Trump having the wherewithal. But an “evil” lawyer should stand out? Isn’t that the whole point of the rule of law? I understand that politico/lay people can pull the levers - but it should be hard for them to find a lawyer.
I hope DOJ’s statement cited above is mostly posturing.
I must say that the intrusion into the president’s role in foreign affairs of a directive to repatriate a wrongly deported person seems pretty small, and the corresponding deference due should also be small.
What can the District Court judge do to minimize delaying actions by the Government, I presume the Court would try and get firm commitments from the Gov't on specific actions they would take to "effectuate" the Courts order and by when? But if compliance is inadequate does the District Court have any true power on it's own to drive compliance? To your point it sure does seem that Trump can stall this effort easily.
Your analysis of the Abrego Garcia case is the best and most inclusive and constructive that I have read. Hoping the best of success for Judge Xinis! Judge Steven Robinson, circuit court judge, State of Florida (retired).
I wonder how quickly we’re going to see it back in the Supreme Court. Maybe a matter of a few weeks.
Shades of "with all deliberate speed", and odds are good that the effect will be the same, no speed at all.
What a horrific situation for Mr. Garcia and his family. If our government is paying El Salvador to house deportees I would assume our government would have access to their government, prison officials to communicate and return Mr. Garcia to the U.S. . The whole deportation did not follow the law, and I believe the government knew that but continued to just disappear people. It is very frightening to think they have the power to do this, meaning it could happen to you or me.
Has America been sold to the highest bidder?
Prayers to the Garcia family and hope this gets resolved with a safe return.☮️❤️🇺🇸
Yes, it is absolutely terrifying.
This, plus the increasing risk of a recession, as well as global anger, seems to be decimating the travel industry, as well.
Yesterday, on the news, they showed largely empty airports in the USA, relatively speaking, and an executive from Delta was giving a perspective. I guess this may be one area that may see a decline in price. Sadly, this often means lost jobs, as well.
This was all unnecessary, unless the intent is to terrorize the public.
I hope he makes it home safely to the USA, soon.
The intent, in almost everything this "administration" (better labeled a regime) does, is to terrorize the public into silence and obedience. It is the authoritarian playbook. In the instance of immigrants, the intent is to terrorize them enough so that they'll "self-deport". After all, better that than being sent to a foreign gulag to rot in perpetuity.
I agree
That you even ask the question “Has America been sold to the highest bidder?” suggests two things in response - merely asking the question makes it so . . . and - it was sold to the only bidder!
Has America been sold to the highest bidder? Answer: YES. Witness 1: Charles Swabb in the oval the other day when the some tariffs were paused DJT “Chuck you just made $9B on that move, didn’t you?” 2. All the cryptocurrency contributions he & family get from foreign actors/investors. 3. Elon Musk awarding himself government contracts at FAA, etc.
There's a (spectacular) movie called "The Dancer Upstairs." An important part of the premise is that there's a revolution going on in some (unnamed and unspecified) Latin American country, but it's not an all out and declared revolution. It's a series of destructive acts intended to corrode the standing government, and install a character called "President Ezekiel."
In that same sense, the current US government is corroding the United States one piecemeal act after another. And it includes, as you quote, cracks like an expression of doubt that a US judge has any authority over the leader of some other country. The nexus is omitted: how did Garcia get to that other country? Doesn't the US Executive branch bear entire responsibility for that placement, and isn't it then responsible to be more lawful, and more likely correct, about such transfers? But the deck, as you partially imply, is stacked against the people of the United States, because "regularity" has been suspended, no longer exists, and its absence is supported by the current Legislative and Judicial branches.
FWIW the Dancer Upstairs is pretty clearly an allegory about Peru, Abimael Guzman, and the Shining Path.
If nothing else, the court should hold regular short term status conferences to force the administration to repeatedly and publicly say or not say what it is or is not doing to effectuate the return of Mr. Abrego Garcia. Whatever they say or not say will be enlightening. Silence - by long intervals of not asking - is not an option.
Thank you!
We often need clarification.
The news media needs to hire more experts in law as well as economics and not just English and journalism majors.
Too often they just "rinse and repeat" what others are saying, thinking that is the safe bet and thus cause more confusion. I do not have cable so I do not know what CNN reported and find their online coverage often lacking some depth, so not sure what they said there either.
When the media says "a win" for X, Y or Z, it is often misleading since that may not actually be the case when one looks under the hood, and I am not a legal mechanic, so thanks.
This helps a lot.
"English majors" Am I reading the wrong newspapers? As an avid NYT reader, IMHO they need to hire more English majors. ;)
I am not a lawyer and I understand that wiggle room allowed with facilitate and effectuate. The justice dept with its statement drove a semi through it. Shame!!
The Supreme Court's claim that the scope of "effectuate" needs clarification seems like chickening out. For example, Merriam-Webster defines it as "to cause or bring about (something) : to put (something) into effect or operation ". Are there really any other meanings that could apply in this context?
Thank you and wow. Walks Roberts’ line of seeming to protect institutional democracy while trying on the unitary executive pursuing a Christian white nationalist agenda in a dimly lit room to demonstrate that it seems like a pretty good fit. Yikes.
To speak in (some) defense of Justice Roberts et al., the administration's bad faith conduct also means that the Court can't be confident a direct order will be followed, and if Trump gets away with explicitly disregarding even a single order, that's presumably the ballgame. So part of the strategy here, it seems to me, is to bend over backwards for the administration to avoid any such confrontation or, at a minimum, build up sufficient track record to weather the inevitable political attacks that will follow.
I find it hard to imagine that the Trump administration will agree to follow the law in this case. Their statements and their use of CECOT prison in El Salvador make it perfectly clear that their intention is to evade oversight by the judicial branch.
The Supreme Court justices had better don their holsters. The ultimate showdown is coming soon. The outcome will reveal whether we are still living in a democracy or if we are now in a tyranny where even U.S. citizens can be "disappeared" to foreign prisons without trial or redress.
I appreciate the good faith and strategic thinking, but I wonder what you (since he’s not here to speak for himself) think Roberts’ endgame is. Is he trying (1) simply to avoid direct confrontation with the administration and so just protecting the courts from a fight the courts cannot win, (2) to protect the rule of law by essentially making it harder for the administration to « disobey » and a full blown constitutional crisis thus less likely, or (3) to stay out of the political arena by putting government action in a light (i.e. determining it be unconstitutional or illegal) that conjures a political response from citizens? In short, is he primarily protecting his turf, the administration, or (the semblance of) the rule of law ?
I don't think those are mutually exclusive, and in some ways they're actually complementary. Legally speaking, a novel 5-4 decision in favor of an unsympathetic litigant is just as binding as an unambiguous 9-0 decision with overwhelming public opinion behind it, but as a practical matter Trump is much more likely to win the former showdown than the latter if he wants to. So the calculation, I assume, is to protect the Court's reputation and relationship with the Administration by ducking the marginal fights (or throwing Trump the occasional bone, as they did here in Abrego Garcia), so that it's on the strongest possible footing if and when confrontation becomes unavoidable.
Right! The S Ct justices aren't perfect but they weren't born yesterday.
This is a very good point and seems quite consistent with how Roberts in particular has been behaving. Allowing the administration to continue at least claiming to respect the system does indeed help avoid or delay an explicit constitutional crisis.
Of course, however, it leaves us with an implicit one instead. If the court itself has to simply play the game to uphold the optics of the rule of law, then it has de facto already lost the power to check the executive branch. In effect, the court has averted an open constitutional crisis by giving up in advance. And maybe that really is their best move insofar as it keeps the door open for future administrations to return to baseline.
Worrisome nonetheless.
Infuriating.
Many thanks, however, for the clarity.
This ruling is much better than the other one. The most important part of it is going to turn out to be the requirement that the Administration provide information on its efforts to facilitate. No, they aren't going to get away with a conclusory, false "there's nothing we can do" declaration. If they do that they're going to end up with people on the witness stand being questioned by the judge. And you have to lay a foundation for the state secrets privilege that simply can't be laid here.
What's actually going to happen is this one is going to work. The Administration will either in the short or long term realize they are boxed in by the requirement to provide real information, and will capitulate and get the guy out.
Does anybody know the legal ”brains” behind the Trump administration? They seem to be threading the needle in a way that infers strategy? And I can’t imagine Trump having the wherewithal. But an “evil” lawyer should stand out? Isn’t that the whole point of the rule of law? I understand that politico/lay people can pull the levers - but it should be hard for them to find a lawyer.
I'd also like to know who the 'legal brains' is/are.
I hope DOJ’s statement cited above is mostly posturing.
I must say that the intrusion into the president’s role in foreign affairs of a directive to repatriate a wrongly deported person seems pretty small, and the corresponding deference due should also be small.
What can the District Court judge do to minimize delaying actions by the Government, I presume the Court would try and get firm commitments from the Gov't on specific actions they would take to "effectuate" the Courts order and by when? But if compliance is inadequate does the District Court have any true power on it's own to drive compliance? To your point it sure does seem that Trump can stall this effort easily.
Thank you for clarifying the court's obfuscation. More people need to hear the "real" reality. Again, thank you.
Your analysis of the Abrego Garcia case is the best and most inclusive and constructive that I have read. Hoping the best of success for Judge Xinis! Judge Steven Robinson, circuit court judge, State of Florida (retired).