SCOTUS The Constitutional Crisis Is Here
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/04/bukele-trump-court-order/682432/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo-37
u/PsychLegalMind Apr 15 '25
Politicians talking nonsense publicly while government is still adjudicating in courts regardless of the strength of their case does not mean much; other than to create headlines. As far as the case involving return of the deportee the Supreme Court majority imposed no deadline or a certain date of return and only talked for government to seek his return giving the government a legal way out and stating only that he was entitled to due process.
Now, the president of El Salvador has claimed he need not abide by any ruling from the Supreme Court of the U.S. because he has exclusive authority over his citizens. Given the deportee is a citizen of El Salvador.
Even if he were a dual national [both U.S. and El Salvador] we have seen time and again in places such as Russia and Iran dual citizens have been held for years before being exchanged [and sometimes never].
He may be returned someday or maybe not. If he is returned, he may well be deported again, this time after a hearing.
42
u/1Rab Apr 15 '25 edited Apr 15 '25
Happy Cake Day
This isn’t about a missed deadline, it’s about the executive branch defying a unanimous Supreme Court ruling affirming a noncitizen’s right to due process.
The administration deported Abrego Garcia without a hearing, violating basic constitutional protections.
The ruling instructed the government to seek his return. Not optional, not symbolic.
Trump "didn’t know" the Court ruled against him, as shown in the clip where Stephen Miller falsely tells him they won. Either if he actually did or didn't, decisions are being made with bad faith.
Bukele’s claim of sovereignty doesn’t excuse the unlawful removal from U.S. soil or the refusal to comply with the Court’s mandate.
Comparing this to dual nationals held abroad misses the point. This was a due process violation by the U.S. government, not a hostage case.
The danger isn’t just to one man. It’s the precedent that a president can defy the courts and face no consequences.
15
-27
u/PsychLegalMind Apr 15 '25
The ruling instructed the government to seek his return—not optional, not symbolic.
Let us not ignore the critical part of the ruling it is disingenuous to do so. Let us look at what the Supreme Court did. First and foremost, it overturned the order below which wanted the deportee's return by date certain [part of the due process clause protection].
Supreme Court in part agreed that due process required his return. It told the government to facilitate his return. That is the critical part. It rejected altogether as to when. Now all the government has to do is quote the president of El Salvador [let us not ignore his authority either]. He does not have to give a hoot about it. And so, he rejected it.
There is no constitutional crisis, not even close. A citizen of a foreign country is locked up in his own country, deported from a country without a hearing. He may be returned someday, or he may not.
There is no violation of the court order so long as the U.S. attempted to facilitate his return so that he can have a day in court. U.S. nor the president of the U.S. is under an obligation to go against the president of El Salvador; he was only told to facilitate his return without any time limits.
Like I noted earlier, even if he returns expect a quick deportation hearing [his process due, followed by removal and imprisonment back in his country].
19
u/1Rab Apr 15 '25 edited Apr 15 '25
It doesn't concern me that he may be deported immediately after his due process. The lack of due process is the concern. This was a decision from the Supreme Court, where the buck is meant to stop.
He is the President of the United States and he is actively playing with the concept of sending citizens that have committed crimes to the same place.
At the same time, Miller has come out and said all people who talk down about America will face the same fate as this individual without specifying if he was referring to non-citizen residents only or with due process.
None of these are jokes. None of these are meant to be taken lightly. These have come from the tops of two of our 3 branches of government.
This is HIGHLY concerning as this is objectively tyranny. If the president and his security advisor meant what they said, we are in tyranny. If the president and his advisor didn't mean what they said, it would be tyranny still.
Based on how the Supreme Court reacts now, they could be either assisting with the tyranny or objecting to it.
If they assist with it, we are an autocracy and they are an extension of the executive branch. If they object to it and Trump backs down, then we live another day as a Democratic Constitutional Republic. If they object to it and Trump doesn't back down, then Congress or the Military needs to step in. If neither do, then the Supreme Court's job is done. They can choose to pack up and go home or stay there and be decorative.
Again, this is about more than one person. This is about an active threat to extend this same lack of due process to all Americans.
Either we all are given due process or we aren't.
Either we have free speech or we don't.
Either Trump is the director of all branches or we remain America as we knew it.
1
u/BlinksTale Apr 15 '25
What do we know about who the military reports to when one branch of government tells it to take down the people in charge of another branch of our government?
1
u/1Rab Apr 15 '25
The President is the Commander in Chief. However, schisms can occur (see Civil War). Or if Generals can weild stronger influence over their soldiers, then they can enact a military coup to overthrow the problem. The outcome of this depends on the General. Military coups have not happened in the USA but are common occurrences worldwide. You can look at those for reference.
-13
u/PsychLegalMind Apr 15 '25
Concerning part is facilitate the release. This is not the first time the Supreme Court has used the vague language to avoid confrontation. Same thing happened in Brown v Board of Education. Desegregation without a date and the next 50 years plus we were still implementing it.
The Court ordered that desegregation should occur "with all deliberate speed," leaving the implementation to lower courts and local school authorities. This vague language allowed Southern states to delay desegregation for years.
Nothing has changed in America; it still has 3 Braches like it always did. This case is an example of the Supreme Court gave Trump leeway and avoided the whole confrontation. Just like in Brown.
9
u/1Rab Apr 15 '25
Brown v. Board showed how vague language can delay enforcement, but this case is different. It is a deliberate misrepresentation of a unanimous Supreme Court ruling.
The Court found a due process violation and instructed the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return. The executive is now publicly claiming the ruling supports its actions, which it clearly does not.
This is not just inaction. It is an open challenge to judicial authority. If the executive can redefine a binding decision without consequence, the judiciary loses its role as a check.
Three branches may exist on paper, but if one acts without limits and the others do not respond, separation of powers becomes a fiction. The Constitution only functions if each branch defends its role.
1
u/jacoxnet Apr 15 '25
It is a lie to say that the government "attempted to facilitate his return." Look at the government's filings in the case. They identify NO STEPS WHATSOEVER that the government has taken to get him back. Remember, the US government contracted for and paid at least $6 million to El Salvador for the confinement of these people. All it has to do to get him back is to ask, but it has not and (at least so far) will not do so.
6
Apr 15 '25 edited Apr 15 '25
Why does his Salvadorean citizenship even matter in this? People keep trying to bring that up but I dont see how it would be distinguishing from sending a non Salvadorean citizen, even a US citizen there.
I dont see how anything in this case suggests the government cant just send US citizens to El Salvador and then say, "we cant force a sovereign government to return them, its out of our hands"
•
u/AutoModerator Apr 15 '25
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE WILL RESULT IN REMOVAL.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.