UJ
—
Chief Justice John Roberts has been outmaneuvered by President Donald Trump in the battle concerning the administration’s wrongful deportation of a Maryland resident to El Salvador.
Despite the right-leaning justices’ attempts to balance respect for the executive branch with efforts to liberate Kilmar Abrego Garcia, they appear ineffective. The White House has rendered the Supreme Court’s directive in the case utterly meaningless, claiming a 9-0 victory that requires no further actions for Abrego Garcia’s return from a notoriously harsh prison in El Salvador.
The Trump administration interpreted the Supreme Court’s order as narrowly as possible, showcasing a level of bad faith that the justices may not have foreseen.
Nonetheless, Roberts and the majority of the Supreme Court contributed to this situation with their brief, ambiguous order stating that the government should “facilitate,” not “effectuate,” his release.
Concurrently, the justices highlighted in last Thursday’s order the importance of “due regard for the deference owed” to the executive branch in matters of foreign policy.
In contrast to lower court judges who had previously dealt with the Abrego Garcia case, the Roberts majority expressed no indignation over the administration’s error. They even missed the opportunity to echo sentiments from a fellow conservative, U.S. appellate Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson.
“There is no question that the government messed up here,” Wilkinson asserted.
Wilkinson, a Ronald Reagan appointee, pointed out that the administration need to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return instead of merely stating that they would “effectuate” it, which means to ensure it occurs. (Previously, U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis had commanded the government to “facilitate and effectuate” his return by 11:59 PM on April 7.)
However, while the Supreme Court’s affirmation of parts of the Xinis order lacked rhetorical strength, Wilkinson cautioned about the implications if the Trump administration remained obstinate.
“The circumstances of this case reveal a concerning loophole: namely that the government could transport individuals to foreign prisons in violation of court orders and then claim, by invoking its Article II powers, that it no longer takes responsibility for them, leaving nothing to be done,” Wilkinson wrote. “This highlights a potential trajectory of complete lawlessness, which is something that courts cannot accept.”
What was once a possibility is now a reality.
Reiterating their claims made in court submissions, Trump officials suggested on Monday that they possess neither the authority nor obligation to retrieve Abrego Garcia.
“It’s up to El Salvador if they choose to return him,” stated Attorney General Pam Bondi. “That’s not our responsibility. The Supreme Court determined that if El Salvador wishes to return him … we are to facilitate it: which means, provide a plane.”
White House advisor Stephen Miller added in the Oval Office meeting on Monday with Trump and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, “It was 9-0, in our favor, against the district court ruling, asserting that no district court has the authority to compel the foreign policy actions of the United States.”
For his part, Bukele stated that he would not release Abrego Garcia.
The Supreme Court’s order was unsigned. If Roberts and his fellow justices hoped for a different interpretation of their ruling, they greatly miscalculated. (Alternatively, they could be entirely content.)
Nevertheless, in the public sphere, Trump officials have disparaged the Roberts Court’s verdict. Meanwhile, Abrego Garcia remains incarcerated.
As noted by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her separate observations last week, “The Government has provided no legal justification for Abrego Garcia’s unpermitted arrest, his removal to El Salvador, or his detention in a Salvadoran prison… where he has been held for 26 days and counting.”
It has now been 31 days.
Since Trump’s election in 2016, he and Roberts have frequently found themselves in opposition, in various cases and on broader matters.
A significant conflict arose just last month when Trump labeled a federal judge overseeing a separate deportation case as “crooked” and demanded in a social media post that the judge “should be IMPEACHED.”
Roberts, who for weeks refrained from addressing Trump’s administration’s verbal attacks on the judiciary, eventually issued a statement asserting, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements over a judicial ruling. The standard appellate review process is available for that purpose.”
Roberts, the 17th chief justice of the United States, clearly adopts a more measured approach than the 47th president. While crafting his opinions, Roberts appears unconcerned with making rhetorical points against the administration.
However, as a staunch advocate for executive authority, Roberts has frequently sided with Trump. Earlier this month, he and four conservative colleagues allowed Trump to expedite deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, a 1798 law previously applied only in wartime contexts.
The ruling did establish a safeguard, mandating that individuals facing deportation be notified of their status under the Act and given the opportunity to contest their deportation before a U.S. judge in the district of their detention.
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts rebukes calls to impeach judges
