The Trump administration is refusing to bring back a man it illegally deported to El Salvador.

In a stunning turn of events, the Trump administration is now openly defying a Supreme Court order to bring back a man they illegally deported to El Salvador. How can a president who claims to respect the Supreme Court mock its authority and refuse to comply with its ruling? What does it say about the state of our democracy when the executive branch openly challenges the judiciary? And what about the man at the center of this controversy, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who fled violence in El Salvador only to be sent back to a notorious mega-prison? Is he being subjected to torture and mistreatment in a country known for its troubled prison system? These questions raise serious concerns about the rule of law, human rights, and the accountability of those in power. The Trump administration’s actions in this case warrant close scrutiny and demand a response from those who believe in the principles that underpin our democracy.

1. Supreme Court Order

The Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man who was illegally deported to El Salvador. This order came after it was revealed that his deportation was a result of an “administrative error.”

2. Administration’s Refusal

Despite the Supreme Court’s order, the Trump administration is now claiming that it has no responsibility to bring Abrego Garcia back to the United States. They argue that the migrants in El Salvador, including Abrego Garcia, are now solely under the custody of the Central American nation, and their fate lies in the hands of El Salvador President Nayib Bukele.

3. Constitutional Arguments

The Justice Department, representing the administration, argues that Abrego Garcia’s family has no right to demand his release and return to the U.S. They claim that such a directive would be unconstitutional and a misunderstanding of the Supreme Court’s order to “facilitate” his return. They interpret “facilitate” as taking steps to remove domestic obstacles that would impede his ability to return to the U.S.

4. Lack of Transparency

The administration further refuses to share copies or details of its agreements with El Salvador regarding the holding of migrants. They claim that this information is either classified, subject to attorney-client privilege, or subject to the State Secrets privilege. This lack of transparency raises concerns about the administration’s actions and the treatment of migrants in El Salvador.

5. Gang Membership Argument

In a separate filing, the Department of Homeland Security argues that Abrego Garcia is no longer eligible for withholding of removal because he is a member of MS-13, a gang designated as a foreign terrorist organization by Trump. They claim that this designation nullifies the protective order against his deportation. However, it is worth noting that the administration has been criticized for making specious claims about gang ties based on unrelated tattoos and apparel choices.

In conclusion, the Trump administration’s refusal to comply with the Supreme Court order to bring back Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man illegally deported to El Salvador, raises serious concerns about the administration’s respect for the rule of law and the authority of the judiciary. By publicly mocking the Supreme Court and arguing that they have no responsibility to bring Abrego Garcia back, the administration undermines the principles that underpin our democracy. The administration’s constitutional arguments and lack of transparency regarding its agreements with El Salvador further compound these concerns. Additionally, the justification for deporting Abrego Garcia based on his alleged gang membership raises questions about the administration’s use of specious claims and its treatment of migrants. The situation highlights the need for accountability and scrutiny of those in power to ensure the protection of human rights and the integrity of our democratic institutions.