The Trump administration has come under fire recently for the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in early April to uphold the ruling of a lower court that Pres. Trump was responsible for facilitating the return of Garcia to the U.S., but he has yet to do so. Attorney General Pam Bondi attempted to explain why and claimed the administration interpreted the court’s ruling to mean Trump only had to facilitate Garcia’s return if El Salvador was willing to return him.
Garcia’s case has garnered attention on social media as he was deported without committing a crime in what the administration said was an “administrative error.” This contradicts Trump’s earlier claims that he would deport undocumented immigrants who were criminals. The Trump administration. has attempted to justify his deportation by saying Garcia was part of a Salvadoran gang called MS-13, a claim his wife and attorney deny. Garcia’s deportation also goes against a judge’s order from 2019 that barred him from being sent back to El Salvador.
This is not the first time Trump has found himself at odds with the courts since his reelection. Judges have been blocking parts of his agenda for months, including his firing of federal workers and his efforts to end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. His administration also ignored orders from Washington-based District Judge James Boasberg when he ordered them to turn around planes carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.
Boasberg has upped the pressure on the administration by claiming he has probable cause to find the government in contempt. He cites that officials showed “willful disregard” for his orders and will likely initiate further court proceedings to hold officials accountable. Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for Maryland, the judge who presided over Garcia’s case before it went to the Supreme Court, will also likely initiate further court proceedings for similar reasons.
If the judges pursue criminal contempt, charges would need to be issued by the Justice Department, which the president oversees and can issue a pardon for. Boasberg said if the government is not willing to prosecute, he would personally appoint an attorney to do so, but that attorney would be overseen by the U.S. Attorney General. They could also pursue civil contempt where they can hold a government official or the government as a whole in contempt. The judges could impose daily fines or even jail time until the contempt is purged. Trump would not be able to issue a pardon for civil contempt.
A 1911 Supreme Court ruling described the courts need to enforce their orders: “For while it is sparingly to be used, yet the power of courts to punish for contempts is a necessary and integral part of the independence of the judiciary, and is absolutely essential to the performance of the duties imposed on them by law. Without it they are mere boards of arbitration, whose judgments and decrees would only be advisory. If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own disobedience set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls the ‘judicial power of the United States’ would be a mere mockery.”
