I expected a few judges to bite on the administration’s argument that once he is out of the country the courts are not in a position to legally do anything. They did not bite.
The current administrations insistence that even in court cases their attorneys must be unflinching in their positions ... really puts their attorneys in a somewhat hilarious spot at times. Granted it would be funnier if it weren't so sad ...
There are limits on what the judiciary can tell the other branches to do in regards to international relations.
Having said that there’s nothing to indicate that applies in this case. In past cases, the courts have required the US government to bring someone back who was deported. It has been done before.
This was before the Court on an emergency application for relief from the District of Maryland's order. (Of course — virtually everything from this administration is filed as an "emergency" — see https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/supreme-court....)
The Chief Justice temporarily stayed the order pending the Court's review.
The Court restored the effect of the District of Maryland's order that the government facilitate the return but ordered that the District of Maryland clarify what it meant by "effectuate" and that it give due deference to the Executive regarding foreign policy functions.
So the Court was balancing its own role vis-à-vis the District Court's role as the court of first instance, as well as the Judicial Branch's role vis-à-vis the Executive Branch's.
But a heavier hand is warranted and required, in my humble estimation.
Later edit: Prior administrations have taken full advantage of the emergency docket too; I intended to emphasize that, in these first 100 days of the second Trump administration, the (not unexpected) flurry of cases has the government seeking emergency review left and right.
I'm thinking "effectuate" could be interpreted as requiring force if necessary. Since this is another country, that would be outside the purview of a court to mandate a military action. They can require that the govt "facilitate" El Salvador's action to return him.
Unanimous order.
I expected a few judges to bite on the administration’s argument that once he is out of the country the courts are not in a position to legally do anything. They did not bite.
Sotomayor's statement that the government's position "refutes itself" ought to have been in the full Court's order.
The current administrations insistence that even in court cases their attorneys must be unflinching in their positions ... really puts their attorneys in a somewhat hilarious spot at times. Granted it would be funnier if it weren't so sad ...
It would make it pretty hard for the judiciary to be a coequal check on the other branches if its power ended at the border.
Why? It’s nonsense on the face of it.
There are limits on what the judiciary can tell the other branches to do in regards to international relations.
Having said that there’s nothing to indicate that applies in this case. In past cases, the courts have required the US government to bring someone back who was deported. It has been done before.
Original link is the 4-page court order.
Also various reports:
https://www.baltimoresun.com/2025/04/10/supreme-court-rules-...
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/10/supreme-court-trump...
Glad to see this, though to my non-lawyerly eyes the ruling is pretty lilly-livered on the points of "facilitate" and "effectuate".
This was before the Court on an emergency application for relief from the District of Maryland's order. (Of course — virtually everything from this administration is filed as an "emergency" — see https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/10/us/politics/supreme-court....)
The Chief Justice temporarily stayed the order pending the Court's review.
The Court restored the effect of the District of Maryland's order that the government facilitate the return but ordered that the District of Maryland clarify what it meant by "effectuate" and that it give due deference to the Executive regarding foreign policy functions.
So the Court was balancing its own role vis-à-vis the District Court's role as the court of first instance, as well as the Judicial Branch's role vis-à-vis the Executive Branch's.
But a heavier hand is warranted and required, in my humble estimation.
Later edit: Prior administrations have taken full advantage of the emergency docket too; I intended to emphasize that, in these first 100 days of the second Trump administration, the (not unexpected) flurry of cases has the government seeking emergency review left and right.
I'm thinking "effectuate" could be interpreted as requiring force if necessary. Since this is another country, that would be outside the purview of a court to mandate a military action. They can require that the govt "facilitate" El Salvador's action to return him.