Joshua Tubbs ‘25
Staff Writer
Since Donald Trump’s inauguration, his administration has been on a collision course with the judicial branch. As federal courts strike down each unconstitutional policy, the Trump administration has inched closer to overstepping the lines drawn by the Constitution and challenging the judiciary. This confrontation recently reached its worst, as the Trump administration explicitly disobeyed a court order when deporting an alleged terrorist.
On March 15, 2025, authorities removed Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia from the United States because of his alleged involvement with the El Salvador gang MS-13. Abrego Garcia was subsequently deported to an El Salvador prison, where he remains.
Abrego Garcia’s deportation raises several concerns, with none more pertinent than the Trump administration’s lack of respect for the judicial branch. The initial order requiring Abrego Garcia’s deportation contradicted the decision of an immigration judge, which barred sending him to El Salvador because of concerns for his security.
Although Abrego Garcia’s removal is the most blatant example of judicial disobedience, it is not the only instance in which the Trump administration has created friction with the courts. On April 10, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld a part of a district court order requiring that the federal government “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to America. This decision, while requiring the Trump administration to take action to reverse its initial mistake, omits the stronger language of the lower court to “facilitate and effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return to America.
Problematically, changing this language allows the Trump administration to evade the main principle of the Supreme Court’s decision: returning Abrego Garcia. Without the term “effectuate,” and thus any requirement for decisive action, the administration can leave Abrego Garcia in an El Salvador prison and still abide by the order, so long as its “attempts” to facilitate his release are unsuccessful. Thus, the Supreme Court’s indecisive language provides one explanation for why Abrego Garcia is still in an El Salvador prison despite being wrongfully deported over three weeks ago.
While many might find this outcome troubling, this mistake is not unprecedented. Ironically, the Court committed a similar error in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Ed. I (1954), when it ruled that states could use some discretion when implementing plans to end segregation in schools. Unsurprisingly, giving Southern states this discretion allowed them to ignore the Court, and segregation continued. It was not until the next year that the Supreme Court released the supplementary decision, Brown v. Board of Ed. II (1955), and the phrase “with all deliberate speed” was added, which notes that states were required to implement desegregation policies with some degree of immediacy, and improvements were made.
The Supreme Court must learn from Brown II to fulfill its counter-majoritarian purpose. Although the courts are considered the weakest form of government, with the legislative branch maintaining the “purse” and the executive wielding the “sword,” the Supreme Court must be willing to hold the Trump administration accountable. Otherwise, the Trump administration will continue to evade court orders, as it has in the Abrego Garcia case, threatening the authority of the judicial branch.
Some will claim that overtly challenging the authority of the Trump administration is too great a risk to the Court’s legitimacy. While this submission might be better than a complete “crash” in the “game of chicken,” it is untenable here. It is a far greater risk for the Court to be a bystander as the foundational liberties of the American republic are decimated. To preserve these liberties, the Court must stand its ground, even amidst political scrutiny from the far right. Failure to do so will, at the very least, erode the checks and balances that underpin the American republic.
Featured image courtesy of Google Images
Leave a Reply