The Answer Appears to be Defiance
The administration does not appear interested in deferring to the courts.
So reports the NYT: The government ‘continues to delay, obfuscate and flout’ courts in return of deported man, his lawyers say.
The Trump administration on Friday defied a federal judge’s order to provide an explanation for how it intended to bring back to the United States a Maryland man who was unlawfully deported to El Salvador last month.
In an aggressive two-page filing, Justice Department lawyers told the judge, Paula Xinis, that she had not given them enough time to figure out what they planned to do about the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, after the Supreme Court ordered the administration on Thursday to “facilitate” his return to U.S. soil.
“Defendants are unable to provide the information requested by the court on the impracticable deadline set by the court hours after the Supreme Court issued its order,” the department lawyers wrote.
“In light of the insufficient amount of time afforded to review the Supreme Court order,” the lawyers went on, “defendants are not in a position where they ‘can’ share any information requested by the court. That is the reality.”
The administration’s refusal to comply with Judge Xinis’s directives put it on a collision course with the judge and threatened to erupt into a showdown between the executive and judicial branches. The White House has had tension with judges in other cases — particularly those involving President Trump’s deportation policies — but the conflict with Judge Xinis was one of the most contentious yet.
I think this line from the response from the administration follows the script I essentially predicted earlier today: “Foreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review.”
None of this bodes well for rule of law, let alone for Kilmar Abrego Garcia.
And still, nothing will happen to stop the defiance.
Garcia will, one day soon, die in that prison.
Democracy is dying as we watch.
How many divisions does John Roberts have?
He seems to want to somehow finesse his way around Trump refusing to obey a court order. He can’t keep it up for four years.
Human Rights Watch, from a month ago:
Bolding is mine. Ominous feeling is all of ours.
They probably are congratulating each other on how brilliant they are for finding a way to hack the system.
I’d say step one is throwing the USDA for Maryland in jail for civil contempt until they answer the three questions. Start there and then just start jailing every AUSA until they bring him back. Make Lawyers Afraid Again.
@Beth: Jail in Maryland would be nice. Jail in El Salvador would really get the point across, though.
George Orwell, Esq. at work here, using doublespeak to the court in order to put enough lipstick on extraordinary rendition and quid pro quos with (fellow) tin horn dictators to claim that Trump is “conducting foreign policy,” and therefore has no rules or boundaries, and any consequences fall under the well established doctrine of shit happens. I hope Judge Xinis dishes out some contempt citations.
ETA – agreeing 100% with Beth, who posted while I was letting the steam come out of my ears. LOCK EM UP!
Biden wasted his presidential immunity.
Just spitballing here, but what’s preventing some wealthy individual from simply buying the freedom of these individuals who were wrongly rounded up? I’m sure El Salvador could use the money and plenty of Americans seem to have money they can light on fire to keep warm.
@Beth: Is it somehow unethical for a judge to file a bar complaint?
Although given the way big law firms are folding and offering pro bono work to the administration, I don’t have a lot of faith in the bar either. If it’s not literally the same people, they run in the same circles.
The previous lawyer for this case, who the administration placed on leave for saying “I have not gotten an adequate answer from my clients” is presumably sitting at home, pointing to the screen saying “see, not an adequate answer” to anyone who will listen.
@Paine: I don’t see how the Administration could complain if Bukele found a higher bidder to free him as they claim to have absolutely no say in his continued incarceration. So what objection could they have to his benefactor/liberator returning him to the US? I mean, there is a standing order for him to be here.
@Beth: Who is going to do that? US Marshal Service? Which is part of the Justice Department. And reports to Pam Bondi.
Like I wrote a couple of weeks ago. Democrats need to try to move responsibility of the the US Marshal Service to the Judicial Branch.
Wait for the Executive Order declaring Marbury v. Madison no longer operative.
Unless, of course, the Supreme Court commits seppuku and declares it themselves.
Our sporadic conservative visitors don’t seem to visit these threads.
@Scott:
So, originally I was going to say the Marshall that’s in the courtroom and sees the Judge every day. Then I had a waaaaaaaay better idea.
The lawyer themselves. Simple, clean, elegant. You see, we’re officers of the court. L. OFUCKING. L.
So, here’s how it works. Judge Orders the attorney to comply by a certain date. They pull this bullshit and refuse. Judge via written order holds them in civil contempt and the quash mechanism is (the answer the judge is looking for or even Mr. Abrego Garcia). The order then states that the attorney is to march themselves down to the courthouse lockup and close the door behind them. Then when the contempt is lifted because it’s either been quashed by the appellate court or they do what they are supposed to, the Marshall can let them out.
The beauty of this is that the lawyer now has a Sophie’s choice to make: comply with a direct court order and lock themselves in a jail cell or disobey a direct court order which might get them disbarred (or at the very least they are going to have a very tough time explaining that to their state bar, which may not take kindly to it.) You really only need one, dumb, loudmouth shitbag to immolate their career by getting themselves disbarred to really put the fear of Hekate into these dummies.
@Gustopher:
So, I only really know about how IL state courts would handle that, but my guess is that it’s required in some places. The Judges are all lawyers and subject to most of the same rules as everyone else. In Cook County (IL) the judges like to order attorneys to turn themselves in to the ARDC (the entity that actually regulates attorneys in IL).
I had a Judge do that to me once. I gave a wrong answer to a question and the Judge flipped his shit. He claimed that I intentionally lied to the court and blah blah blah. It wasn’t as bad as the time the Judge threw papers at me, but a close second. He was screaming and turning purple and then demanded that me and the pro se idiots join him in his chambers so he could scream at me some more. I used that time to figure out what I said and then was like “oh, sorry judge, I mis-read my notes and said the wrong thing, I’m so sorry for the confusion and here’s the exact spot in the record I messed up.” He apologized exactly once and then told me that attorney’s like to lie. I was like that’s fine.
The happy ending to that shit sandwich was, however, the judge decided I was super extra scrupulous and when it came time to hand down the judgement I got the pleasure of beating the pro se idiots like those Japanese drums.
I fucking hate litigation so fucking much.
@Scott:
I mean, Roberts is going to allow Trump and Alito to hang him. It’s going to be awesome when it happens. Nothing like getting the job of your dreams and the pinnacle of your profession, and going down in history as the guy who fucked it all cause of two dumbshits.
I just imagined a conversation between two senators, a D and an R.
Sen D: So, are you ready to vote for impeachment yet? Not that we are likely to get the chance…
Sen R: C’mon man, it’s just one guy. That’s not that big a deal. They will be more cautious.
Sen D: One guy? ONE GUY? I’m curious now. What’s your number?
Sen R: My number? What you on about?
Sen D: How many people, how many US Citizens rendered to a foreign jail with no due process, with no process whatsoever, would it take for you to vote for impeachment? 5? 10? 100? A million?
Sen R: That’s a crazy hypothetical. Don’t get crazy on me.
That’s ok. If they don’t make lame ass remarks here I won’t have to fight the temptation to feed the trolls.
You wont see much defense of this as it is indefensible. All the US has to say is we wont pay you and we wont send you anyone else unless you send that guy back. He will be here in a day.
Steve
Hmmm… If only someone had seen this coming…..
Can we freak out yet? Or are we still waiting for him/them to do something “really bad”?
I don’t hold out much hope for Abrego Garcia. The courts, even (or especially) SCOTUS, will not save him or preserve our democracy.
But, if we learned anything this past week, Trump can’t gaslight what the stock or bond markets do and that in the end Trump is a coward when he can’t sell the lie. So, weaken him where he has shown vulnerability. Hit him relentlessly on the market numbers, consumer confidence, and prices. Then, hope this makes it harder for his GOP backers to keep hiding behind him.
@Gustopher: “Is it somehow unethical for a judge to file a bar complaint?”
I’m not going to research it, but I believe that when a lawyer acts unethically (not the same as contemptuously) before a presiding judge, the judge can refer the matter to a state bar association for investigation. That’s slightly different from filing a bar complaint per se, as it poses a question (were rules violated and, if so, what is the appropriate measure to take?) as opposed to outright advocating that the bar member violated the rules.
Judges in several jurisdictions, and in federal court, have adopted judicial canons of ethics. If a judge violates one or more of those canons, that would be unethical, and in federal court, at least, other judges will review that, if necessary, according to a specific procedure. But I don’t know of anything in the federal canons that prevents a judge – such as U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis – from asking state bar officials to look into potentially unethical behavior, absent some improper motive. (I do suspect that any referral would follow affording the subject attorney notice and an opportunity to respond).
Also, keep in mind the distinction between the federal and state governments. Generally speaking, attorneys are licensed to practice in states and similar jurisdictions in accordance with state law, and they are admitted to practice in federal courts based on that. States, however, often control bar associations, and if an attorney disagrees with a state bar decision (a reprimand, a suspension, etc.) after the administrative process has concluded, he or she may be able to appeal that to a state court, depending on the jurisdiction. But in that instance, the referring federal court judge would not be involved as a party to that, and judicial review of a state bar decision would not ordinarily end up in federal court.
@Beth: “I fucking hate litigation so fucking much.”
I have a lot of respect for trial lawyers and litigators. But I’ve also heard litigation referred to as the type of practice where you “have to break things.” Usually, someone wins and someone loses, but it can often be an emotionally (if not financially) draining process for everyone involved, even lawyers.
By contrast, lawyers doing transactional work end up “trying to put things together.” For example, for attorneys who still do in person real estate closings, those sitting around the table stand up when all the documents have been signed, the seller gives the buyers the keys to the property, and everyone shakes hands and leaves with a smile. The seller, buyers, and lender are all happy, and the closing attorney should be, too. That’s a different feeling to take home at the end of the day, as far as practice areas are concerned.
The regime is positively euphoric that America finally has its very own gulags.
If El Salvador were to start executing the “illegals”, Noem would probably ask if she could lend a hand.
@Gustopher:
“Our sporadic conservative visitors don’t seem to visit these threads.”
This is how it always is in authoritarian regimes. The majority of people are too squeamish to openly call for atrocities so they studiously look away and talk about something else.
It isn’t always out of fear- in fact oftentimes it is because they quietly cheer on the atrocities but want to preserve the facade of decency.
I read a story about a Jewish survivor, a few years after the war who went back to her parent’s house to rebuild her life. A neighbor hesitantly approached and said how sad it was what happened, but of course no one had any idea.
To which the survivor said, “What do you think happened? Where did you think we all went? On vacation??”
The witnesses had all seen it, knew it, understood it, but consciously blocked it out of their minds since in the end, they really didn’t have any problem with the final solution other than y’know, facing it honestly.
@Winecoff46:
One of my nicer litigation experiences was when I was in a settlement conference and I realized 1 full minute before everyone else in the room, that for once, I didn’t have the crazy sitting next to me. I still don’t have the settlement agreement cause I’m sure the crazy is wasting his money fighting his own lawyer.
And transactional work used to be better. What you said was true 95% of the time. Or at least close enough. And the remote closings didn’t really change that. What I think changed it was Trump letting people believe that they too could make unrealistic and stupid demands and force people to cave. I had to tell the other attorney that if I had to write the Fuck You letter it would end up worse for everyone except me. And I’d still be pissed. They showed up on time the next day.
I hate this world. This is the bad place.
I’ve said this in other places: it should not take this kind of court battle to get this done. An Administration that wasn’t filled with cruel psychopaths would be breaking their backs to get this guy home (indeed, they wouldn’t have sent him in the first place but that’s another issue). They know he’s innocent. They know he shouldn’t be there. But they’re fighting out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
You will see actual progress on this front when specific individuals of the administration are arrested and jailed for specific crimes. Until then… it’s all Monopoly Money ™.
How about this for a hypothetical: Say all the deportees were truly bad guys. Yet there are others left in the U.S. who take a blood oath to avenge the deportees. Who would be the first target?
@Hal_10000: This!
@Gustopher:
I have noticed as well. Over and over and over again.
Note to all: one of the banned commenters did just try and comment (although, I will note, not about the substance of the post).
I would point out that there are several non-banned persons who defend the administration who assiduously avoid these topics. These are the people that @Gustopher is discussing.
If you find your comments are not getting through, it is because you have demonstrated an inability to do anything other than derail the conversations and/or you did something specific to get banned. This would have been noted at the time.
Feel free to lurk and add to our readership numbers if you just can’t quit us, but also take the hint (actually, it isn’t a hint–it should be pretty obvious).