The New Yorker:

A legal scholar argues that the judiciary’s “passive-aggressive approach” to the Trump Administration is doomed to fail.

By Isaac Chotiner

In March, the Trump Administration deported Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran citizen who was living in Maryland with his family, to a notorious prison in El Salvador. After outrage grew over Abrego Garcia’s deportation, the Administration acknowledged that it was the result of an “administrative error.” A district court judge, Paula Xinis, ordered the government to “effectutate” Abrego Garcia’s return. Last week, the Supreme Court largely agreed with the decision, adding that “the intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’ in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.”

Meanwhile, the Administration has continued to ignore Xinis’s order, and has offered no explanation as to whether it has been doing anything to work toward bringing Abrego Garcia home. On Monday, Trump welcomed Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to the Oval Office, where Bukele said that he had no intention of sending Abrego Garcia back to the United States. That same day, Trump’s advisor Stephen Miller contradicted the Administration’s previous, repeated statements that Abrego Garcia was sent to El Salvador by mistake, instead claiming that he was in fact supposed to be deported.

The Administration’s intransigence in the face of court orders, which has been a disturbing constant of the past several months, raises questions about whether the Supreme Court will put pressure on the Administration to follow the law. Last week, in a separate case, the Court ruled that the Administration could continue using a 1798 law, the Alien Enemies Act, to deport non-citizens, although those non-citizens have a right to due process to challenge their removals.

Go to link