Why aren’t they made to bring all of them back!? “Guilty until proven innocent” would be an improvement right now because they’re deemed guilty without the chance to prove their innocence?! Throwing out “Innocent until proven guilty” and all other tenets of due process is insanity!
They’re running the country on a “move fast and break things” mentality and it’s madness because the things they are breaking are the Justice system, the Constitution and peoples lives! They’re relying on “outrage fatigue” and I get it, that’s super effective! I’ve seen the images of the protests and there’s a hundred different things people are mad about but something has to happen quick, before it’s too late and everyone who isn’t 100% Red WHITE Blue and MAGA gets swept up?!
I know it’s easy for me to say this from afar and the protests so far have been truly impressive but they need to be massively ramped up and fast! Because once the system is broken it’s gonna be reaaaly reaaaaly hard to put it back together again!
The decision itself actually does instruct the district court to “ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law.” But the Supreme Court actually can’t instruct them to bring everyone back. All they can do is rule on the specific case they have in front of them.
Now, it’s anybody’s guess whether anything will actually come of this. Is SCOTUS willing to hold the Trump DOJ in contempt? I don’t know. They’re running on pretty thin ice before the entire judicial community, and while Kavanaugh and Thomas probably wouldn’t ever go for it, some of the more “constitutionalist” justices can probably see their own legitimacy and authority evaporating in front of them as the Trump administration continues to ignore court orders, and might well act.
Would that do anything? Good question. For 236 years, the Supreme Court has worked on the assumption that everyone will abide by their decision, but their actual enforcement ability is pretty limited. Infamously (and potentially legendarily) Andrew Jackson said, “[Chief Justice John] Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” before ignoring the ruling (a pro-Indian decision) entirely. But in today’s world, blatantly ignoring a Supreme Court decision could very well be the first tug of the thread that unravels the already-thin cover of legitimacy on Federal power.
Would we then become a military state, governed exclusively by whoever controls (a bulk of) our armed forces? Would Congress finally act? Would something else happen to break the deadlock? There’s just no way of knowing.
At its core, all political power is illusion. All of the rules are constructs. We made them all up so that our society would function better. If people who are insulated from that society decide that they don’t care about its function, they ignore the rules; at which point everyone else starts to ignore them, too.
So defying the Supreme Court would be a step toward anarchy. I don’t doubt that Trump would be okay with that. But some of the people around him might recognize that he’d be cutting off the branch he’s standing on if he did.
Frankly, I’m shocked. In a good way. Now enforce it.
Work to? That could mean nothing.
Plus El Salvador could say oops he was killed by another prisoner or something and then make sure that happens and then probably get rewarded for it. Trump could suggest it right on TV. Then what? The Supreme Court has already said he can’t be prosecuted for anything he does as president.
The decision doesn’t say “work to.” It actually passes it back down to the district court to handle the details. Sotomayor wrote the decision:
On Friday, April 4, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland entered an order directing the Government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States […] 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. 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.
Emphasis mine and citations removed. The decision also said:
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. […] The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. […] That view refutes itself.
Citations removed. And:
I agree with the Court’s order that the proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with “due process of law,” including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings. […] It must also comply with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. […] Federal law governing detention and removal of immigrants continues, of course, to be binding as well. […] (requiring a warrant before a noncitizen “may be arrested and detained pending a decision” on removal) […] (in order to revoke conditional release, the Government must provide adequate notice and “promptly” arrange an “initial informal interview . . . to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation stated in the notification”). 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.
Emphasis mine and citations removed, again. And finally, she ends it with:
In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law.
So I’m not a lawyer, but it looks like her decision is basically saying, “yes, fix it; and District Court, make it airtight and keep an eye on them.” It’s actually pretty forceful, coming from SCOTUS.
“Work to” was invented by the AP to encapsulate all of that.
