Every time I see a picture of Stephen Miller he looks even more like a Nazi from Central Casting:
Stranger
If Trump had a time machine and could go back to Nazi Germany to talk to Hitler, Hitler would have him thrown in the worst concentration camp after about five seconds of Trump’s blather.
If Miller had a time machine and went back to Nazi Germany, they’d hand him an SS uniform.
Has this one been mentioned? Another couple of cases of court orders being openly defied in Boston: Brown Medicine professor, doctor deported to Lebanon despite having valid visa, court filings claim
I think there might be a slight issue with that.
I think it was mentioned somewhere but not sure in which thread. There are also a number of people with green cards who have tried to enter the country as well as some tourists who all got tossed in detention for no clear reason.
This shit is getting way out of control.
And I don’t care what some posters have said, the US Marshalls will not be enforcing any court orders to detain Trump officials. Homan has already said court rulings mean nothing. Even if SCOTUS backs up the Federal courts there is no mechanism to enforce their decisions.
DJT and his gang will be free to run rampant.
There were numerous and even enthusiastic Jewish collaborators with the Nazi regime.
Stranger
Should the first word in the title even be there?
Wasn’t sure where to put this. Nothing conclusive here, just one pundit’s perspective. From Jay Kuo’s Status Kuo Substack yesterday (my bolding):
Finally, keep this in mind: Trump is governing by Executive Order not because he’s strong, but because he’s weak. A strong president could push much of his agenda through a divided Congress, like Joe Biden did. Trump knows he can’t do that, so he issues proclamations and orders that get routinely knocked back by the courts.
That leaves him playing footsie with the idea that he can simply defy them in the end, but if he truly believed that he would have done it outright by now, while his hand was still strong. Now that he is underwater on approval, even over the economy which is supposed to be his wheelhouse, the chance that he would win a battle with the judiciary is much diminished.
I understand that the judiciary is accustomed to things playing out over months and years … but is Trump’s administration not outright defying the judiciary right now? If Kuo thinks not, what does he suppose outright defiance looks like? Public explicit declarations that “no, we don’t have to listen to the courts”?
Perhaps the near-term fate of wrongfully-deported Kilmar Abrego Garcia will be telling. The Trump administration filed an appeal Saturday to pause a district judge’s ruling that the federal government “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S. by today. From the text of the appeal:
“A judicial order that forces the Executive to engage with a foreign power in a certain way, let alone compel a certain action by a foreign sovereign, is constitutionally intolerable,” they wrote …
Government lawyers say they have no control over Abrego Garcia and no authority to arrange for his return — “any more than they would have the power to follow a court order commanding them to ‘effectuate’ the end of the war in Ukraine, or a return of the hostages from Gaza.”
“It is an injunction to force a foreign sovereign to send back a foreign terrorist within three days’ time. That is no way to run a government. And it has no basis in American law,” they wrote.
Can a President be arrested for contempt? Would it make a difference if it were a federal vs state judge?
No, but Trump’s not the one at whom to aim potential enforcement actions. Thinking narrowly of the battery of current lawsuits against Trump’s executive orders and other executive actions (e.g. deportations, DOGE firings).
I simply don’t see any valid reason whatsoever that the administration can’t be forced to try.
Agreed. The Trump administration attorneys are misrepresenting what the district judge has asked of them. It’s not “an injunction to force a foreign sovereign to send back a foreign terrorist”.
I’m actually wondering how they will justify claiming that the people aren’t effectively in US custody - I mean, what’s the “reason” they are in a prison in El Salvador? They didn’t commit any crimes in El Salvador before they were there. Why is the US paying El Salvador to keep them in custody? There are all sorts of situations where one jurisdiction pays another to detains people - for example, it’s not uncommon for ICE to detain people in a county jail and pay the jail. But ICE controls when the are released and so on , not the county jail. Why would the US be paying El Salvador and not have any control? I mean, I know why they want to claim they have no control ( because of that case where they didn’t turn the planes around) but they can’t say that.
I haven’t really tried to grok it out, but to my lizard/lawyer brain, there is SOME appeal to the argument that courts ought not be able to require specific actions of this sort - especially WRT interaction with foreign governments. I’m trying (not rally hard) to come up with similar situations in other litigation, where courts are able to require parties take similar affirmative action - especially when compliance requires coordination with a 3d party who is not a part of the suit.
If the Trump administration’s argument is that they cannot get anyone back after they’ve been sent to El Salvador, then the next order must be that they are no longer permitted to transport anyone there. If they get away with this now, then what will stop them from deporting American citizens there and then making the same claim?
I don’t think that is the argument which I believe has some merit. Instead, they are arguing that the court ought not be allowed to order them to do so.
Like I said, I haven’t really tried to think this all out. But think of a situation where I fired you for impermissible reasons. If you sue me and win, the court MIGHT be able to order me to rehire you. But would you want them to be able to say I have to convince A DIFFERENT COMPANY to hire you?
And I think it especially has merit regarding foreign relations. Maybe a court could order the US to stop selling weapons to Ukraine. (Crazy suggestion.) But should the court be able to say the US has to try to convince European countries to not sell weapons to Ukraine?
(Yeah - problematic analogies. But getting at what I mean about courts not generally mandating action with entities that are not party to a suit.)
The Court is simply upholding due process, which is one of the bedrock guiding principals of our Constitution. The President and his administration can be ordered by the court to follow the Constitution. If this is now a one way gulag situation, and it is allowed even in the case of an admitted mistake, then we are well and truly lost. None of us are safe.
OK. I’m willing to suppose you know more about how courts function than I. But I think there are SOME limits as to what a court can do - the types of relief they can order - in the process of upholding due process. But I may be mistaken.
I might buy that argument if there was any indication that the US made an attempt to get him back and El Salvador refused. Like for example, “give him back or we won’t pay you”. That’s the thing - no one believes that the US has no ability to exert pressure and El Salvador will keep him even if the money is cut off. An administration that tries to control colleges and states by threatening to cut off funding suddenly can’t do that to El Salvador?
Would you be arguing that the courts can’t order the executive to fix this mistake if it was you or someone you cared about mistakenly sent to the gulag? Do you think it is ever permissible for the courts to limit executive power? I’m trying to gauge exactly what level of horrifying miscarriage of justice would be enough for you to accept that the courts have equal power to the executive branch.