Last week, the Supreme Court issued an unsigned opinion requiring the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a 29-year-old Maryland man whom immigration officials deported to a Salvadoran megaprison 32 days ago. But the justices pointedly stopped short of requiring the administration to “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return, in light of the “deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.” They did so despite the fact that lawyers for the government have conceded that it had no legal basis to deport Abrego Garcia; in court, they have characterized his disappearance as an “administrative error,” as if shipping a man who has not been accused of a crime to an overseas gulag is the equivalent of neglecting to attach an itemized receipt to an expense report.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 hours ago

      I think you made that mistake of ending your sentence too quickly. Maybe you meant to say it would not have an impact on Trump’s actions over the next week or two. But in general, quite obviously it would have a huge impact.

      That’s not to say that democracy would prevail. Nobody knows that. But the impact would have been real. And if you disagree with me, then why are we here in the first place? I think we’re here because we all know that the ruling would have a gigantic impact. It would have clarified the fact that Mr. Orange has effected a coup d’etat. That’s different from saying that he would be stopped, of course, but if you think there’s no possible way to make the situation better than why are you bothering to write here in the first place.

    • tpihkal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 hours ago

      This is not the first time that the Executive branch has ignored Supreme Court orders. See Worcester v. Georgia and the dispute between Chief Justice Roger Taney and General Cadwalader.

      The problem is that the Executive branch is (theoretically) supposed to uphold the decisions of the Judicial branch, but irl, enforcement of those decisions is easier said than done when the Executive branch disagrees.

    • kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It wouldn’t have changed their actions, but it would have rid them of any plausible deniability that they had committed contempt of the Supreme Court in doing so. It would have made the constitutional crusts that we ARE in undeniable, and even the Idris at Fox News couldn’t pretend that the administration followed the order by “allowing” his return if El Salvador just so happened to send him back. As it is now, you will have many MAGA believing that the administration is in compliance with the court’s orders and did nothing wrong. They would have at least had to face the truth if there was no wiggle room, and maybe some would actually acknowledge that the administration is in the wrong any this one thing at least.

      • thedruid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 hours ago

        the legislature cant charge the president with anything while in the official act of his duties. congress has to, and they wont

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        18 hours ago

        Just keep on holding presidents in contempt until you get someone rational. I think the first stop for that is Rubio.