4 ms·

What about that guy who got deported to El Salvador even though he was legally here and the court had also ordered he not be sent back to El Salvador for his ow

by efnx 1y ago

What about that guy who got deported to El Salvador even though he was legally here and the court had also ordered he not be sent back to El Salvador for his own protection? I’m pretty sure the admin admitted it was a mistake then refused to bring him back.

ethbr1 1y ago
The Supreme Court resolutely batted that down 9-0 in a few days. >> The [District Court] 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. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf The only question at this point is how detailed in demands the District Court can be. The administration attempted to push the boundaries of executive power and lost in court, as has been happening. Turns out, conservative justices with lifetime appointments aren't too legally thrilled about an unbridled executive either.
- passive 1y ago
  This order was toothless, and the administration has already flouted it. All John Roberts is doing is asking Trump to go further next time. Whether it's intentional or just cowardice on his part doesn't really matter to the rest of us.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    It matter to me, since there are 2-3 conservative justices on the current Supreme Court that are likely to tire of administration excesses. A long game player might even say Roberts is angling for that, by tailoring consensus opinions that nonetheless leave room for the administration to demonstrate further stupidity.
- bcrosby95 1y ago
  Yes, that is where my quote came from. From your own quote: > The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. Which is such a ridiculously bullshit line of thought. This wasn't some person who willingly went to some random country, this is someone the executive illegally put there against the person's will in coordination with said foreign government. I can guarantee you that any order with teeth will be struck down by SCOTUS on this line of thought.
  - ethbr1 1y ago
    I'm not sure why people obtusely intepret Supreme Court rulings as though they're part of the current administration. The court is obviously saying that (1) it's correct and necessary to bring him back but that (2) the District Court doesn't have unbridled authority to order any foreign policy-influencing remedy it wants. I.e. a US court couldn't order a president to sign a treaty If the administration tries to foot drag further, the Supreme Court will likely order more specific remedies. By not taking the L here, the administration is just burning whatever conservative goodwill they might have started with on this Supreme Court.
    - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
      They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation, as well as the lower court's order to provide information on the victim's location and attempts to retrieve him. They disobeyed numerous court orders to rehire people they fired and re-fund things they defunded. What makes you think the administration cares about goodwill after that? Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon. There's no going back to the illusion that judicial judgements will be respected by this administration.
      - ethbr1 1y ago
        > They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order, and the consequences of that are still being worked out. They then appealed the order to immediately bring him back, and the Supreme Court paused that while it decided. The decision then directed the District Court to clarify the how of what it was demanding. So "somewhat" and "no": they haven't directly ignored the Supreme Court. Unless you'd care to cite a specific case and quote from a ruling? > Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon. Appealing a decision is different than ignoring. And like the multiple other times it historically happened? https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforcement-judicial-orders https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforce...

by efnx 1y ago

ethbr1 1y ago

The Supreme Court resolutely batted that down 9-0 in a few days. >> The [District Court] 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. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf The only question at this point is how detailed in demands the District Court can be. The administration attempted to push the boundaries of executive power and lost in court, as has been happening. Turns out, conservative justices with lifetime appointments aren't too legally thrilled about an unbridled executive either.

passive 1y ago
This order was toothless, and the administration has already flouted it. All John Roberts is doing is asking Trump to go further next time. Whether it's intentional or just cowardice on his part doesn't really matter to the rest of us.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  It matter to me, since there are 2-3 conservative justices on the current Supreme Court that are likely to tire of administration excesses. A long game player might even say Roberts is angling for that, by tailoring consensus opinions that nonetheless leave room for the administration to demonstrate further stupidity.
bcrosby95 1y ago
Yes, that is where my quote came from. From your own quote: > The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. Which is such a ridiculously bullshit line of thought. This wasn't some person who willingly went to some random country, this is someone the executive illegally put there against the person's will in coordination with said foreign government. I can guarantee you that any order with teeth will be struck down by SCOTUS on this line of thought.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  I'm not sure why people obtusely intepret Supreme Court rulings as though they're part of the current administration. The court is obviously saying that (1) it's correct and necessary to bring him back but that (2) the District Court doesn't have unbridled authority to order any foreign policy-influencing remedy it wants. I.e. a US court couldn't order a president to sign a treaty If the administration tries to foot drag further, the Supreme Court will likely order more specific remedies. By not taking the L here, the administration is just burning whatever conservative goodwill they might have started with on this Supreme Court.
  - ImPostingOnHN 1y ago
    They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation, as well as the lower court's order to provide information on the victim's location and attempts to retrieve him. They disobeyed numerous court orders to rehire people they fired and re-fund things they defunded. What makes you think the administration cares about goodwill after that? Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon. There's no going back to the illusion that judicial judgements will be respected by this administration.
    - ethbr1 1y ago
      > They're already disobeying the court, including both the lower court's order and the supreme court's order to attempt repatriation They tried to weasel around the verbal vs written order, and the consequences of that are still being worked out. They then appealed the order to immediately bring him back, and the Supreme Court paused that while it decided. The decision then directed the District Court to clarify the how of what it was demanding. So "somewhat" and "no": they haven't directly ignored the Supreme Court. Unless you'd care to cite a specific case and quote from a ruling? > Disobeying direct court orders is crossing the Rubicon. Appealing a decision is different than ignoring. And like the multiple other times it historically happened? https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforcement-judicial-orders https://www.fjc.gov/history/administration/executive-enforce...