Bulwark Takes: Detailed Summary of "Supreme Court Said Bring Him Back—Trump Still Refusing"

Podcast Information:

• Title: Bulwark Takes
• Host/Author: The Bulwark
• Description: The news cycle doesn’t slow down, and neither does The Bulwark. Bulwark Takes brings you bite-sized takes on the news of the day from the entire Bulwark team, including Tim Miller, Sarah Longwell, and Bill Kristol, and more.
• Episode Title: Supreme Court Said Bring Him Back—Trump Still Refusing
• Release Date: April 14, 2025

1. Introduction and Case Background

The episode opens with Sarah Longwell, Publisher of The Bulwark, welcoming Andrew Egger, the Morning Shots newsletter writer, to discuss a pressing legal and political issue. The central topic revolves around a Maryland father who was mistakenly deported to an intense prison in El Salvador. According to Sarah, the U.S. administration admitted the error, but the Supreme Court intervened, ruling that the White House must facilitate the man's return due to his protected status.

Sarah Longwell outlines the man's circumstances:

• He holds protected status.
• Married to an American citizen with American children.
• Faces threats in El Salvador if returned, justifying his protected status.

She highlights the Supreme Court's direction that the White House must act, yet notes Trump's administration appears resistant to complying fully with the ruling.

2. Supreme Court Ruling and Administration's Response

Andrew Egger delves into the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that the primary issue was the lack of due process in the man's deportation. The Court determined that deporting him without appropriate legal procedures violated his rights.

"...they didn't give him due process at all." [00:57]

Egger explains that while the Supreme Court mandated facilitation of the man's return, the Trump administration is maneuvering to interpret this directive narrowly. They argue that although they must attempt to facilitate his return, they are not obligated to ensure it happens, especially if the Salvadoran government refuses.

"President Bukele has graciously accepted into his nation's custody some of the most violent alien enemies of the world..." [04:31]

Despite the Court's ruling, the administration contends that ultimate responsibility lies with President Bukele of El Salvador, insinuating that cooperation from El Salvador is not guaranteed.

3. Legal and Political Implications

Sarah probes the reasons behind the administration's reluctance to comply fully, questioning whether it's due to genuine belief in the man's alleged criminal activities or a refusal to acknowledge their mistake.

Andrew Egger responds by suggesting a dual motive:

1. Protecting Narrative: The administration maintains that the man is a high-ranking member of MS-13, despite lacking concrete evidence.

   "They have not given a shred of evidence to suggest that any of that is actually true." [06:03]

2. Strategic Avoidance: By avoiding full compliance, they prevent setting a precedent that could hinder future deportations and maintain control over immigration policies without judicial interference.

Egger criticizes the administration's strategy as dismantling established immigration processes, prioritizing expediency over legality and due process.

4. Broader Context and Additional Cases

Sarah mentions other instances where individuals were erroneously deported, including a gay makeup artist. She raises concerns about the administration's opaque handling of evidence, often citing classified information without transparency.

Andrew Egger acknowledges the issue, pointing out that many deportations are justified with vague references to intelligence without substantive proof. He underscores the administration's reliance on "classified" or undisclosed evidence to legitimize questionable deportations.

"If you have evidence that they're really working for [anonymous entity], are they just lying or are they not making it available to people?" [10:25]

5. Democratic Response and Public Perception

Sarah questions why Democrats haven't taken more proactive measures, such as traveling to El Salvador to publicly challenge these deportations. She suggests that a robust Democratic presence could counteract Republican narratives that cast the administration's actions as necessary for national security.

Andrew Egger offers a nuanced perspective, recognizing the Democrats' hesitance to engage publicly due to potential backlash and the complexities of the situation. He emphasizes that the Democrats' messaging apparatus is "completely broken," making it challenging to effectively counter the administration's narrative.

"The whole problem with Democrats right now is that their messaging apparatus is completely broken..." [16:32]

Egger argues that the focus should be on ensuring due process and holding the administration accountable through legal channels rather than direct public confrontation.

6. Potential Consequences and Future Outlook

In the final segment, Sarah raises concerns about the long-term implications of the administration's defiance of the Supreme Court, questioning whether this could erode the judiciary's authority.

Andrew Egger warns that President Trump is "playing with fire," risking the undermining of the Supreme Court's authority. He notes Trump's history of disregarding institutional norms and suggests that this behavior could lead to significant political and legal repercussions.

"He's trying to dare the Supreme Court..." [18:18]

Egger expresses uncertainty about the eventual resolution but stresses that the current trajectory poses threats to the rule of law and could set dangerous precedents for future administrations.

7. Conclusion

Sarah wraps up the discussion by emphasizing the gravity of the situation, noting that there must be an eventual outcome—either the man remains in El Salvador or is returned to the U.S. She thanks Andrew for his insights and indicates that The Bulwark will continue to monitor and update listeners on this developing story.

"There's going to be an outcome here." [21:33]

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Sarah Longwell [00:00]: "Sarah, welcome to Bulwark Takes. I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark..."

• Andrew Egger [00:57]: "...they didn't give him due process at all."

• Andrew Egger [04:31]: "President Bukele has graciously accepted into his nation's custody some of the most violent alien enemies of the world..."

• Andrew Egger [06:03]: "They have not given a shred of evidence to suggest that any of that is actually true."

• Andrew Egger [10:25]: "If you have evidence that they're really working for [anonymous entity], are they just lying or are they not making it available to people?"

• Andrew Egger [16:32]: "The whole problem with Democrats right now is that their messaging apparatus is completely broken..."

• Andrew Egger [18:18]: "...He's trying to dare the Supreme Court."

• Sarah Longwell [21:33]: "There's going to be an outcome here."

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration must facilitate the return of a Maryland father erroneously deported to El Salvador, highlighting violations of due process.

• The Trump administration is navigating a narrow interpretation of the ruling, attempting to avoid full compliance by shifting responsibility to President Bukele of El Salvador.

• Multiple cases of wrongful deportations raise concerns about the administration's transparency and adherence to legal standards, often citing classified or undisclosed evidence.

• Democrats face challenges in effectively countering the administration's narrative due to messaging inefficiencies and potential backlash.

• The administration's defiance of the Supreme Court risks undermining judicial authority and setting troubling precedents for future governance.

This episode of Bulwark Takes provides a comprehensive examination of the ongoing tensions between the U.S. administration and the judiciary over immigration enforcement, highlighting the broader implications for legal processes and political accountability.