Consider This from NPR - Behind two high-profile deportation cases, a legal crisis grows

Episode Date: April 18, 2025

This week, two federal judges handling separate immigration cases escalated their attempts to get the Trump administration to comply with court orders.One case involves President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, the 18th-century wartime law, to deport migrants without due process.The other is about the wrongful deportation, also without due process, of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, and the government's refusal to bring him back to the U.S.The growing conflicts point to a potential constitutional crisis, where the president openly defies the country's highest court — or at least, as one legal scholar maintains, a crisis at the Supreme Court.Our guest is University of Virginia professor Amanda Frost, who specializes in immigration and citizenship law.For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org.Email us at [e-mail] more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

A cartoon this week in the New Yorker Magazine shows a reporter standing before the steps of the Supreme Court. Into her microphone, she intones, today the Supreme Court is expected to rule in the case of people versus guy who will ignore the ruling. Like all political cartoons, it's designed to capture a moment, and the moment in which we find ourselves presents a mounting number of legal cases where the Trump administration appears to be avoiding or ignoring court orders. Last Friday, aboard a noisy Air Force One, President Trump told reporters, I respect the Supreme Court. Well, the Supreme Court has ordered

the Trump administration to, quote, facilitate the return of a man named Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. He was, the government acknowledges, wrongfully deported to a mega prison in El Salvador last month, despite legal protection which was supposed to prevent this. But this week the Trump administration made its position clear. It was not bringing Abrego Garcia back. And senior officials doubled down on the claim that he's a dangerous gang member. He was illegally in our country. He had been illegally in our country.

Who again is a member of MS-13, which as I'm sure you understand, rapes little girls, murders women, murders children, is engaged in the most barbaric activities in the world, and I can promise you if he was your neighbor, you would move right away." White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Attorney General Pam Bondi speaking from the Oval Office this week, alongside President Trump and El Salvador's President, Nayib Bukele. It's worth mentioning lawyers for Abrego Garcia deny any affiliation with the gang MS-13. And note, their client is accused of being part of an MS-13 clique in New York where he has never lived.

Well, this is the big lie being perpetrated by the president, his administration, and some Republicans in Congress. Earlier this week, I spoke with Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen of Maryland. Kilmar Abrego-Garcia had been living in Maryland, and Senator Van Hollen went to El Salvador to visit him. What we're doing is simply trying to uphold the Constitution of the United States. And the goal here is to have a court of law, through due process, determine the outcome. I'm fighting to uphold the due process rights of every individual. Consider this.

The tension between the Trump administration and courts in this and other cases has left many wondering, is the Trump administration ignoring the highest court in the U.S.? And if so, what would that mean? From NPR, I'm Mary Louise Kelly. When Malcolm Gladwell presented NPR's Through Line podcast with a Peabody award, he praised it for its historical and moral clarity. On Thru Line, we take you back in time to the origins of what's in the news like presidential power, aging, and evangelicalism. Time travel with us every week on the Thru Line podcast from NPR. Hey, it's Amartines. Even as the host of

a news show, it can be hard to keep up with the headlines. That is why we make the Up First podcast. Every morning in under 15 minutes, we cover three major stories with context and analysis from reporters around the world. So you can catch up on what's happening while getting ready, making breakfast, or going to work. So listen to the Up First podcast from NPR.

Having news at your fingertips is great, but sometimes you need an escape. And that's where shortwave comes in. We're a joy-filled science podcast driven by wonder and curiosity that will get you out of your head and in touch with the world around you. Listen now to shortwave, the science Podcast from NPR. It's Consider This from NPR. This week, two federal judges handling immigration cases escalated their attempts to get the Trump administration to comply with court orders. One case involves President Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act, the 18th century wartime law, to deport migrants without due process.

The other is about the wrongful deportation, also without due process, of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. To help us make sense of this, we brought back Amanda Frost, law professor at the University of Virginia. Welcome back. Thank you. First, the case involving the Alien Enemies Act. This week, Judge James Boesberg ruled that there is, and I quote, probable cause to find the Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating his orders last month. What would that mean exactly to be held in criminal contempt?

Yeah, so criminal contempt is the power that all courts have to hold the lawyers in front of it. And contempt, that means to find them or even imprison them if they've lied to the court, if they've refused to follow its orders or violated its orders. Judge Boesberg, in a 46 page opinion, laid out very clearly all of the ways in which

the executive branch and the lawyers before him mischaracterized, obfuscated, and raised frivolous, meritless arguments to avoid his court order, which would have prevented these men from being wrongfully and illegally deported. The Supreme Court has also ruled on this case and in a way that I have seen described as a win for the Trump administration and simultaneously a rebuke to the Trump administration. Explain. Yes, the Supreme Court's decision was deeply frustrating for those who, like myself, feel these men were deported in violation of the Constitution and federal law. The Supreme Court said yes, they have a right to notice and to process, which was violated

in this case. That is such an important statement because, of course, the Trump administration was claiming they had no such right. But at the same time, the Supreme Court said, but they litigated in the wrong forum, they have to start again, they have to bring it in a different jurisdiction. That is extremely frustrating for the rule of law and for the rights of these men and future people who may be wrongfully deported. The second case I mentioned, this was also this week, Judge Paula Zinies announced a two-week

expedited discovery over the Trump administration's refusal to return Kilmar Albrego Garcia to the US. The Trump administration appealed, a federal appeals court has now denied that appeal. It's a lot to keep up with legally. Where does it leave us? Yeah. So I'll just start with the fact that Abrego Garcia was wrongfully deported as the government concedes. He had a court order allowing him to stay in the United States. The government's view is despite the error, they have no obligation to return him. Of course, Judge Sinis ruled against that position, said, yes, you do.

You must facilitate and effectuate the return. The Supreme Court then backed her up, but I would have to say weakly. They said, yes, government, you must try to return him. But they didn't use the strong and clear language she used. And the government is now taking advantage of the leeway the Supreme Court gave them to do at this point nothing. And Judge Zinitz has responded by pushing this forward with a two-week investigation as to what the government is doing.

Danielle Pletka So let me focus us on the Supreme Court. I'm listening to the language you are using in describing the Supreme Court's recent actions, you have called them deeply frustrating. You've said they moved weakly. It sounds as though they are issuing rulings that are so carefully warded that they tiptoe up to wishy washy. Yeah, I think wishy washy is the right word. And if the Supreme Court spoke clearly and firmly, then in cases where the law is crystal clear, as with Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully removed in the government's own admission, then I think we could see a response. President Trump said, if the Supreme Court orders him returned, I will do it.

And then the Supreme Court issues a weak order that I think suggests it's now afraid of the constitutional crisis that would come if the Trump administration were to ignore its rulings. Amanda Frost, we have interviewed you twice in the last two months and both times we have asked whether with the executive branch appearing to ignore the judicial branch, are we in a constitutional crisis? Listening to you, it sounds like you see this more as a Supreme Court crisis right now than a constitutional

crisis. Danielle Pletka I think that's right. When we spoke before, I defined the constitutional crisis or what one would be, would be an open flouting of the orders of the highest court in the land. It would be, no, we do not have to follow the Supreme Court's rulings. This administration isn't saying that and it actually doesn't need to say that in light of the frustratingly weak Supreme Court rulings. What it is doing is making a mockery of the judicial process by returning to the lower courts and obfuscating, mischaracterizing, and making frivolous and meritless arguments

before those courts in ways that suggest that it doesn't need to openly flout orders as long as it can get away with this kind of misbehavior. For the migrants who are now sitting in a prison in El Salvador without due process, does the distinction between a constitutional crisis and a Supreme Court crisis matter? No, for them the result is the same. And I think it's worth adding here that they're the tip of the iceberg. We have the migrants that the president said it could deport without due process and violation now clearly of what all agree the law is. Then we have an individual wrongly deported.

And then we have a president saying he can deport citizens, that he plans to look into deporting homegrown Americans, as he puts it. So there's no endpoint to the president's claim to be able to have unilateral power to remove people from the United States of America without due process. Amanda Frost is a professor at the University of Virginia specializing in immigration and citizenship law.

Amanda Frost, thank you. Thank you. This episode was produced by Catherine Fink. It was edited by Patrick Jaranwadananen. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigan. It's Consider This from NPR. I'm Mary Louise Kelly. At Planet Money, we'll take you from a race to make rum in the Caribbean. Our rum from a quality standpoint is the best in the world. To the labs dreaming up the most advanced microchips.

It's very rare for people to go inside. To the back rooms of New York's Diamond District. What, you're looking for the stupid guy here? They're all smart, don't worry about it. Planet Money from NPR. We go to the story and take you along with us wherever you get your podcasts. Want to hear this podcast without sponsor breaks? Amazon Prime members can listen to Consider This sponsor-free through Amazon Music.

Or you can also support NPR's vital journalism and get Consider This Plus at plus.npr.org. That's plus.npr.org.