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.

      • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

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

      • thedruid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

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

          • thedruid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            I missed typed. You are correct. Only the legislature Can prosecute trump in contempt As far as I know. I THINK they can hold the other parties in contempt

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The Supreme Couet was the one who decided that and if Roe V Wade showed us anything they can undecide that.

    • tpihkal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 month 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
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month 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 crisis that we ARE in undeniable, and even the idiots 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 about this one thing at least.

      • TheThrillOfTime@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t think it’s impossible to make the situation better. I think he’s dismantling the rule of law. For the entirety of the post industrial revolution era, we’ve been governed by words written down, but that was not the case of most of history. Before that, might governed. If you could do something and nobody could physically stop you, then you got your was. Trump is trying to take us back to that.