Hide Two days left! Support our fundraiser by January 5th and get the first BestNetTech Commemorative Coin »

Even The Supreme Court Says Human Trafficking People by Accident Goes Too Far, Less Sure What To Do About It

from the where-in-the-world-is-abrego-garcia? dept

We predicted earlier this week that the Supreme Court would need to weigh in on the Abrego Garcia case. Now it has done so with a striking unanimous order that rejects the DOJ’s attempt to wash its hands of what it admits was “accidentally” trafficking Garcia to El Salvador — a country he had protected status from due to credible threats of torture. The Court’s message is clear: yes, federal courts can and should tell the government to fix its “mistakes,” especially when those mistakes involve sending someone to face torture in violation of U.S. law.

As we had covered, the Trump administration is completely dismissive not just of due process around those it is trafficking to a foreign slave camp (which might have prevented the “accidental” trafficking of someone), but has also been mocking the courts for suggesting it should maybe try to fix the mistake it admits it made. As I noted, anyone with even a smidgen of a conscience or shame would try to fix a mistake upon realization it had been made. I would expect that government officials would go even further if the “mistake” was literally human trafficking someone when they were forbidden from doing so. Instead, the Trump administration has basically just been mocking the district court judge who told them to try to fix this very fixable situation. That’s what puts the sociopathic cherry on top of the evil, hateful human trafficking policy.

Again, this isn’t hard: if you make a mistake, you try to fix it. Especially when lives are at stake. If instead of trying to fix it, you’re laughing about the mistake, it not only shows a callous lack of concern about the human lives at stake, it suggests it wasn’t so much of a “mistake” or “administrative error” but the administration’s position that it will simply ignore all laws and due process to disappear anyone.

Thankfully, even this Supreme Court seems to recognize how fucked up Garcia’s situation is. It released an unsigned order admitting that of course a judge can order the US government to try to facilitate the return of the wrongfully trafficked person, while admitting that it’s possible that El Salvador could refuse it, saying that the original district court ruling may have gone a step too far in ordering DHS to both “facilitate” and “effectuate” Garcia’s return, saying that while it can be ordered to “facilitate” it, the “effectuate” part likely requires some help from a foreign sovereign (El Salvador), which could complicate things:

The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

It’s notable that not a single Justice dissented from this, which is quite notable given the times we live in, and the ways some of the Court will bend over backwards to try to protect Trump.

Justice Sotomayor wrote an additional statement, saying that she wouldn’t have even taken the case in the first place, since the lower courts’ rulings (both the district court and the Fourth Circuit) correctly told the US government to go get Garcia and bring him home. It also calls out exactly how messed up the government’s unwillingness to try to fix its error is, and how it speaks loudly about its willingness to literally disappear anyone:

Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an “oversight.” Decl. of R. Cerna in No. 25–cv–951 (D Md., Mar. 31, 2025), ECF Doc. 11–3, p. 3. The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008). The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8). That view refutes itself.

That said, there are reasonable concerns that the order from the Supreme Court leaves the Trump administration an out: claiming that it’s done everything it can, but El Salvador won’t assist in freeing Garcia. That claim would be wholly unbelievable. The US created an agreement with El Salvador and has plenty of leverage to get Garcia back. Pretending it doesn’t should be seen as a real possibility, and a serious Supreme Court would address it.

But the Roberts court is not a serious court and will ignore the bad faith actions of the Trump administration over and over again.

With the original deadline now passed, Judge Xinis wasted no time demanding answers from DHS. This morning, the government must detail Garcia’s current location, what steps (if any) they’ve taken to bring him back, and their concrete plans for his return. The DOJ quickly filed a motion for an extension, claiming the Xinis’s new deadline was inconsistent with the Supreme Court order and proposing to submit the required information by next Tuesday. The original deadline has now passed, and the extension has not been granted, so it’s unclear what exactly will happen next.

Update: Garcia’s lawyers quickly opposed the extension, and Judge Xinis has now granted a partial extension to 11:30am ET today. This is a developing story and we’ll bring more updates as soon as we can.

Update 2: The DOJ has submitted a filing saying it will not comply with the court’s order. The hearing is still scheduled for 1:00pm ET today.

The unanimity of the Supreme Court’s order, combined with Judge Xinis’s swift follow-up, sends a powerful message: the government’s “oops, nothing we can do” defense isn’t just legally wrong – it’s a dangerous assertion of unlimited power to disappear people beyond the reach of U.S. courts. As Justice Sotomayor noted, taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean the government could deport and incarcerate anyone, including U.S. citizens, as long as they acted before courts could intervene.

We’ll soon see if DHS finally decides to fix its “mistake” or continues its pattern of contempt for both the courts and basic human rights. But I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting the administration to put any real effort into doing the right thing… or that the Supreme Court would actually respond to the government’s inevitable bad faith efforts to avoid doing what it is required — both ethically and legally — to do in this situation.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Even The Supreme Court Says Human Trafficking People by Accident Goes Too Far, Less Sure What To Do About It”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
51 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Pixelation says:

Something Christians are directed to live by… “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” And yet, here we are with them having voted in the party of hate and disdain for others not like them.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Matthew 7:20-21
“So then, you will know them by their fruits.”
“Not everyone who says to Me ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom of heave, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heave will enter”

Regardless of if you are a Christian or not, it’s pretty easy to tell certain types of false ones.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Let’s be honest here. The only reason Thomas and Alito went against it is because they recognize that they can easily end up in an El Salvador torture hole.

The fun part is going to be finding out if they’re already too late. I just wish I could beam the Rebenga scene from Scarface into their heads 24/7/366.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Oh, stop this bullshit already. Even if 230 is dumped⁠—and despite your Chicken Little act, that is not a guarantee⁠—there will still be ways for normal people to talk about governmental abuses via the Internet. Acting like a repeal of 230 means every website that isn’t as big as Google or Netflix will go down immediately after the repeal isn’t helping you here. Everyone here (who isn’t a troll) already knows that 230 going away would be bad, but acting like it’s already happened when it hasn’t and that it’s guaranteed to happend even though it’s not is making you sound like a paranoid conspiracy fantasist. Stop begging for the worst to happen so you can say “I told you so” to yourself.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

He’s not coming back alive. The fascists are going to delay any repercussions as much as they can to ensure the man dies so it’s easier to throw him down the memory hole.

And even if he was brought back alive, all it would do is cause a flurry of media stories that fizzle out after a month at most.

The system will not save you from itself.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re:

He doesn’t have to. All he needs to know, at least as far as he’s concerned, is that any judge that disagrees with Trump in even the slightest way is a DEI Marxist pedophile who needs to be shot in the head like Kristi Noem’s puppy. For Koby, the courts exist for one reason: to rubber-stamp everything Republicans do. Anything else is “judicial activism”.

David says:

Re: Re: Re:

For Koby, the courts exist for one reason: to rubber-stamp everything Republicans do.

I still balk at that kind of language use because “Republican” (and “Conservative”) once meant “a politically informed person whose approaches and views fit a different framework than what I would choose”.

Not a “reactionary radical neo-fascist”.

I mean, a whole lot of judges telling the government it is out of control run under the label “Republican” and have been elected and nominated as such.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

I still balk at that kind of language use because “Republican” (and “Conservative”) once meant “a politically informed person whose approaches and views fit a different framework than what I would choose”.

That isn’t what it means any more, at least in terms of elected officials who belong to the GOP…

Not a “reactionary radical neo-fascist”.

…because that’s what “Republican” means now. Tell me when I’m telling lies.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
n00bdragon (profile) says:

Consider the (all too common) corollary: what is the appropriate action to be taken when the government unlawfully takes someone’s life? If a police officer shoots someone unlawfully, the government can’t unshoot them. They can pay medical bills (if the victim survives), or restitution paid to the victim’s family (if not), but there’s no actual method to compel the government to undo what has been done. That’s not to say that they should get off scot free. Police officers can be charged with murder. Doing illegal things is a crime (I can’t even believe I need to write sentences like that).

Given that Mr. Garcia is in another country (ruled by an unabashed dictator), I’m not convinced there’s anything that the government actually can do, even if it wanted do, but by sending him there illegally without even the slightest cover of law I think they become criminally responsible for anything that happens to him there. A police officer throwing you off a cliff does not get off the hook because it was technically the ground that killed you.

Now, would this court buy a qualified immunity defense because no court case has yet been decided on the legality of taking a lawful resident of the United States and shipping them to a foreign gulag without so much as charging them with a crime? Almost certainly, but that’s the path things should take if you still believe in an orderly Republic of laws.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Given that Mr. Garcia is in another country (ruled by an unabashed dictator), I’m not convinced there’s anything that the government actually can do, even if it wanted do

Don’t let them off that easily. They have an ongoing agreement with El Salvador, they didn’t just drop him from a chopper. There are plenty of levers for the “master negotiator” to use if he actually cares to. Not to mention they could always, y’know, try another Operation Eagle Claw if needed.

but by sending him there illegally without even the slightest cover of law I think they become criminally responsible for anything that happens to him there

On this, we agree 100%.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority.

So good of them to call out a potential exceeding of authority in their own branch of government. Think they missed a spot.

Not sure how they couldn’t get Garcia back. They managed to ship all sorts of people into El Salvador straight into slavery, confinement, and violence. Again, if El Salvador suddenly won’t play ball, after joining the game by being induced by the administration, well gee a carrier group parked off the coast would be a new inducement.

David says:

The DOJ is really making quite the case here

Your honor, I may have pulled the trigger on this gun while aiming at another person, but I am not responsible for physics conspiring to transport the bullet to the victim. I am not a licensed physician, and I am not a licensed dispatcher, so calling an ambulance would be out of the question for me.

If that individual has an adversity to dying, it is their prerogative to stop bleeding any time they want to.

Of course I know how to spell “disingenuous”: it is my second name and nature.

If anybody was queasy about the rather large percentage of employee continuity in the German judicative from before to after WWII, look at the speed of change in the U.S. even without a formal change of the governing Constitution.

That One Guy (profile) says:

I'd love to say I'm surprised by that, but I try not to lie

Update 2: The DOJ has submitted a filing saying it will not comply with the court’s order. The hearing is still scheduled for 1:00pm ET today.

So we can add ‘The literal highest court in the country’ to the list of ‘courts the regime has no problem flipping off and ignoring’ then.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Which means that SCOTUS won’t get in the way when the contempt of court rulings come down.

‘If’, not ‘when’, as apparently the judge in question is still indulging what I can but assume is a public humiliation fetish by letting the government continue to slap them around and string them along, which is fair enough I suppose, I mean it’s not like there anything important hinging on getting this atrocity addressed and fixed as quickly as possible.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Pretty sure if I as a random citizens so openly defied a court order I’d be looking at at a minimum a threat of contempt of court charges damn near instantly, the fact that the judge is still letting the DOJ string them along(after saying they wouldn’t be letting the DOJ ‘slow walk’ things) does not exactly inspire confidence that they’ll have the guts to even issue a serious warning.

ECA (profile) says:

Wonders?

El Salvador? HOW did they pick that location?
Hmmm??
REALLY, Someone had to suggest it, as Planes dont land on water.
YOU cant go someplace WITHOUT a destination.

AND HOW IN HELL, Does a Christian Wannabe Nation, DO THINGS that Arnt Christian or EVEN LEGAL to how our nation Is/WAS.

And I would like to know HOW THAT PERSON ended up on a list? to be Exported.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

In context, it’s a denial of agency (and there by their personhood).

If we were to take them at their word: they would still be a “thing” (or tool) that has been used to cause great harm to other. Perhaps it would be reasonable to destroy tools/things that have no constructive usage.

So, no escape in that direction either.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a BestNetTech Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

BestNetTech community members with BestNetTech Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the BestNetTech Insider Shop »

Follow BestNetTech

BestNetTech Daily Newsletter

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Get all our posts in your inbox with the BestNetTech Daily Newsletter!

We don’t spam. Read our privacy policy for more info.

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
BestNetTech needs your support! Get the first BestNetTech Commemorative Coin with donations of $100
BestNetTech Deals
BestNetTech Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the BestNetTech Insider Discord channel...
Loading...