Amid deportation dispute, Trump and courts square off on who has last word
The Trump administration鈥檚 running battle with the federal courts reached a critical juncture this week, heightening a constitutional dispute that has defined its first three months in power.
President Donald Trump and his deputies have raised the question of whether they need to comply with court orders they disagree with. But developments in a pair of immigration-related cases are raising key questions: Can the executive branch ignore court rulings? And if the government mistakenly deports someone, is it obliged to bring them back?
Federal courts have mostly ruled against the executive branch in such cases. The equivocation that has characterized the administration鈥檚 legal responses to date is turning into objection and refusal.
Why We Wrote This
America鈥檚 executive and judicial branches are at a constitutional standoff over fundamental democratic ideals: following court orders, honoring due process, and preventing government overreach.
A simmering constitutional crisis may now be hitting a boiling point.
The current clashes center on the Trump administration鈥檚 assertion of broad powers to detain and deport individuals with little or no due process. Federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have pushed back.
In an emergency ruling, the Supreme Court on Saturday temporarily blocked the deportations of any Venezuelans held in Northern Texas under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The court directed the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet Detention Center 鈥渦ntil further order of this court.鈥欌��
But with the administration鈥檚 increasing defiance, the court system鈥檚 ability to enforce its orders is being directly tested.
Concern has deepened with the case of Kilmar 脕brego Garc铆a, an undocumented immigrant deported to El Salvador last month without a court hearing. His case raises a novel 鈥� and, including for some conservatives, dangerous 鈥� vision of executive power.
鈥淭he implication of their arguments is they can take anyone they want, put them in the custody of a foreign state acting at the behest of the United States, and wash their hands,鈥� says Ilya Somin, a professor at Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University.
鈥淚f that鈥檚 not a menace to real democratic values, it鈥檚 hard to see what is,鈥� he adds.
Is the government ignoring a Supreme Court ruling?
On March 15, the federal government deported Mr. 脕brego Garc铆a to El Salvador, alleging that the Maryland resident is a member of the MS-13 gang. The Trump administration has designated MS-13 a foreign terrorist organization. Late last month, the government that an 鈥渁dministrative error鈥� led to Mr. 脕brego Garc铆a鈥檚 removal.
The Supreme Court, in an that no justice publicly opposed last week, said the administration needs to 鈥渇acilitate鈥� Mr. 脕brego Garc铆a鈥檚 release from Salvadoran custody. There has been no evidence that the Trump administration has been making that effort.
In court, it has argued that deadlines have been 鈥渋mpracticable鈥� and claims it鈥檚 powerless to take Mr. 脕brego Garc铆a from El Salvador. Outside of court, Trump officials have criticized lower courts and misrepresented the Supreme Court decision. Mr. Trump has upped the ante, saying he 鈥渨ould love鈥� to as well. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.
A series of federal courts have held that the government needs to work to return Mr. 脕brego Garc铆a so he can face formal removal proceedings. Maryland District Court Judge Paula Xinis initially the government to 鈥渇acilitate and effectuate鈥� his return 鈥渢o preserve [his] access to due process in accordance with the Constitution and governing immigration statutes.鈥� The Trump administration appealed the order to the Supreme Court, and last week the justices mostly upheld it.
In a brief, unsigned, the justices did add that Judge Xinis should 鈥渃larify鈥� her order, while the government 鈥渟hould be prepared to share what it can鈥� concerning its compliance.
But since the Supreme Court ruling on April 10, the government has missed to update the court on its steps toward such compliance. In a hearing last Tuesday, Judge Xinis ordered an 鈥渋ntense鈥� two-week inquiry into the administration鈥檚 actions. 鈥淭o date, what the record shows is that nothing has been done,鈥� .鈥淣辞迟丑颈苍驳.鈥�
On Thursday, a panel of federal appeals court judges denied a government request to pause her efforts pending an appeal.
鈥淭he 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,鈥� the judges .
鈥淲illful disregard鈥� of a court order
Judge Xinis鈥� inquiry could lead to contempt of court charges against the Trump administration. Contempt proceedings against presidential administrations are , but they are one of the few procedural tools courts have for enforcing their rulings.
A federal judge moved a step closer to this legal showdown on Wednesday.
On March 15, Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., ordered a temporary pause of deportations to El Salvador, based on the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, invoked by Mr. Trump. The government deported some 238 people that day, and they remain in Salvadoran custody.
This week, the judge concluded that 鈥減robable cause exists鈥� to find the government in criminal contempt. The government, he, showed a 鈥渨illful disregard鈥� of his order.
The finding is significant, but it also illustrates how little enforcement power the judiciary has.
Judge Boasberg 鈥渋s doing his best to respond to an unprecedented situation,鈥� says Aziz Huq, a professor at University of Chicago Law School.
But when enforcing their decisions, he adds, 鈥渃ourts don鈥檛 have much beyond this.鈥�
Dueling responses
The government鈥檚 actions have drawn criticism not just from Judge Xinis and Democratic lawmakers, but also from some conservatives.
Both and Tea Party Republican have said the administration should follow court orders and return Mr. 脕brego Garc铆a.
Jonah Goldberg, a conservative commentator, put it in starker terms.
鈥淭he Trump administration is using words like 鈥榳ar,鈥� 鈥榚nemy,鈥� 鈥榯errorism,鈥� 鈥榗risis鈥� to concentrate 鈥� power in the president and the president alone,鈥� he wrote in The Dispatch, a conservative online magazine. 鈥淒o you really think Democrats are incapable of playing the same game?鈥�
In recent days, Trump officials have taken a different tack. Stephen Miller, a top Trump adviser that the Maryland father 鈥渨as not mistakenly sent to El Salvador.鈥� He also that the Supreme Court had 鈥渞eversed unanimously鈥� the 鈥渕ain components鈥� of Judge Xinis鈥� order.
But the lower courts are standing together in their interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling.
On Thursday evening, Maryland Sen. Chris Van Hollen met with Mr. 脕brego Garc铆a in person, although it was unclear how the meeting was arranged or what was discussed, according to The Associated Press.
It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration鈥檚 legal evasiveness will continue or whether the judges will move toward charging it with contempt, but the stakes of the case are becoming clearer.
鈥淭he Supreme Court鈥檚 decision does not 鈥� allow the government to do essentially nothing,鈥� wrote the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit panel on Thursday in an upholding Judge Xinis鈥� order.
鈥淭he government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order,鈥� the panel added.
鈥淭his should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans, far removed from courthouses, still hold dear.鈥�
This story has been updated to include the U.S. Supreme Court's temporary block, issued over the weekend, on deportations of Venezuelans being held in a Texas detention center. It also corrected the source of a comment by Jonah Goldberg. Mr. Goldberg's comment was made in The Dispatch, where he writes.聽
