Trump Defies SCOTUS Order; Judge Furious

Summary

Bulwark Takes: Trump Defies SCOTUS Order; Judge Furious
Release Date: April 11, 2025

In this tense episode of Bulwark Takes, hosts Sam Stein and Andrew Egger delve into a burgeoning constitutional crisis involving former President Donald Trump’s administration defying a recent Supreme Court (SCOTUS) order. The discussion centers around the high-profile case of Kilmarre Garcia, a Maryland man wrongfully deported to El Salvador, and the ensuing legal and political ramifications of the administration’s response to the court’s directives.

---

1. Overview of the Kilmarre Garcia Case

Sam Stein introduces listeners to the crux of the episode: the SCOTUS decision mandating the Trump administration to facilitate the return of Kilmarre Garcia to the United States or at least provide updates on the steps being taken toward his repatriation. Garcia’s wrongful deportation has ignited debates about executive compliance with judicial orders and the broader implications for the rule of law.

Sam Stein (00:43): "Kilmarre Garcia, the Maryland man who was wrongfully sent to El Salvador... the Supreme Court said you need to facilitate his return to the United States or at least update the courts about the steps you are taking to do so."

2. Legal Terminology and Government’s Response

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the legal terminology used in the SCOTUS order, specifically the distinction between "facilitate" and "effectuate." The administration’s lawyers argue that they cannot comply within the prescribed timeframe, citing national security concerns and claiming insufficient time to address the court’s mandates.

Sam Stein (01:30): "They had to figure out, they had to at least detail what they're going to do to get this guy back... basically defying the court order."

Andrew Egger challenges the notion that the administration is actively defying the order, suggesting that bureaucratic delays and national security considerations are being used as justifications.

Andrew Egger (02:13): "There’s absolutely no question that what's going on right now is crazy... they are publicly saying we do not have time as the government to pull together all of the weighty national security considerations."

3. Judge’s Frustration and Demands for Transparency

The judge overseeing the case has expressed significant frustration with the administration’s lack of transparency regarding Garcia’s status. She has demanded daily updates and specific information about Garcia’s location and custody status, which the government has been reluctant to provide, further escalating tensions.

Andrew Egger (02:48): "She was asking for some extremely basic factual questions about the guy who the Supreme Court has pretty unilaterally said needs to have due process in our courts."

Andrew Egger (05:07): "The judge grew frustrated. The government lawyers... believe that this is of such national security implications and considerations that it falls outside the purview of the court."

4. Political Implications and Executive Defiance

The conversation highlights the political maneuvering surrounding the case, particularly the timing coinciding with President Bukele of El Salvador’s scheduled visit to the White House to meet with Donald Trump. The administration’s reluctance to comply is viewed as part of a broader pattern of defiance against judicial oversight.

Andrew Egger (06:27): "The government was trying to push the date of next check in past Monday when President Bukele is coming to the White House to meet with Donald Trump."

Andrew Egger (07:25): "There's not a single person on earth who would dispute that Bukele would hand this guy back if Donald Trump... We are paying for the incarceration of this man."

5. Consequences for the Rule of Law and Future Legal Battles

Sam Stein and Andrew Egger express deep concerns about the long-term implications of this defiance. They discuss how this scenario could embolden further disregard for court orders, potentially undermining the judiciary’s authority and the rule of law.

Sam Stein (12:24): "It's a nightmare scenario for a lot of people out there... it looks like we have it."

Andrew Egger speculates on the possible reactions from the Supreme Court, suggesting that justices may factor in the administration’s defiance into future rulings, thereby escalating the conflict between the executive branch and the judiciary.

Andrew Egger (10:58): "If you are justice on the Supreme Court and you see the president defying your order, you get pissed... Maybe they don't give a fuck. Honestly."

6. Conclusion and Ongoing Developments

The episode concludes with Stein and Egger acknowledging the severity of the situation and the uncertainty surrounding its resolution. They emphasize the importance of monitoring the administration’s actions and the judiciary’s responses moving forward.

Sam Stein (12:24): "It's extremely worrisome. It's a nightmare scenario... we'll keep tabs on it. Scary stuff."

---

Key Takeaways:

• Legal Conflict: The Trump administration is perceived to be defying a SCOTUS order to return Kilmarre Garcia, citing national security and procedural delays.

• Judicial Frustration: The overseeing judge demands transparency and daily updates, which the administration is failing to provide.

• Political Maneuvering: The timing of these developments coincides with international diplomacy efforts, complicating the administration’s stance.

• Rule of Law Concerns: The defiance raises alarms about the potential erosion of judicial authority and the broader implications for executive accountability.

• Future Uncertainty: The situation remains fluid, with significant implications for ongoing and future legal battles between the executive branch and the judiciary.

This episode of Bulwark Takes offers an in-depth analysis of a critical moment where executive actions may be challenging foundational legal principles, highlighting the delicate balance between national security and judicial oversight.

Transcript

[Podcast Host]

Ready to plug into the future of podcasting. The Podcast show is back. The biggest international festival for the business of podcasting hits London on the 21st and 22nd of May. Join over 10,000 creators, brands and audio pros for two packed days at the Business Design center in Islington. We're talking over 130 game changing sessions with industry heavyweights, award winning talent and exclusive parties and networking events that go way beyond the show. And that's not all. The podcast show Live brings your favorite podcast to life at venues across London all week long. Day passes start from just 109 pounds. Book now at the podcast show London.com.

[Sam Stein]

Hey guys, it's me, Sam Stein, managing editor at the Bulwark here in the midst of a constitutional crisis with Andrew Egger. It's Friday, so I guess every Friday we have some freakout session but this one is legit. We are coming to you. Reacting to a court hearing in Mary over this high profile case. Kilmarre Garcia, the Maryland man who was wrongfully sent to El Salvador, basically just last night Supreme Court said you need to facilitate his return to the United States or at least update the courts about the steps you are taking to do so. And there was some haggling over what the definition of what was it? Facilitate versus I forget the other word. You know there was effectuate. Effectuate. Yes, it's lawyers. But you know that's where they, everyone read it the same way. They had to figure out, they had to at least detail what they're going to do to get this guy back. And then the Trump lawyers came in today and they said no, we're not going to talk about it and we don't have enough time to do it. And they basically are defying the court order. I mean that, that I don't think there's, they'll legally say probably we got, you know, there's some wiggle room here. But it's, it's defiance and we're at the place where we all thought would, we'd end up eventually but we were all very scared about ending up here. So yeah, not good. We're going to get into it. Andrew, am I reading it wrong? I know you're a little even hot, more hot about this than I am. So I think I know what you're going to say. It seems crazy to me.

[Andrew Egger]

There's absolutely no question that what's going on right now is crazy. I guess I might quibble with the, the idea that they are actively defying the order right now. It's like what they are saying is, and it's, you know, it seems totally full of shit, but what they're saying is we do not have time as the government to pull together all of the weighty national security considerations that go into this case in order to be able to give the judge next steps on the very accelerated timetable she has demanded to be able to like, basically hatch a plan that. That was going into this hearing. That was.

[Sam Stein]

I got that. Let me just stop, Let me just pause you for a day. Because. Yes, but they wouldn't even, the government lawyers wouldn't even say what Abrego Garcia's location and statuses. Okay, yes.

[Andrew Egger]

And that was a point that judge made in the hearing. She, she essentially was saying, look, I know you guys are saying your clients haven't yet advised you on what the next steps are, your clients meeting the Trump administration, but I'm not asking you right now for, for the next steps. I'm asking you for some extremely basic factual questions about the guy who the Supreme Court has pretty unilaterally said needs to have due process in our courts. And yes, and yes, you're right. Like that. They, their response to that was, we cannot give you any information that has not been provided to us. To which the judge essentially said, well, why isn't your client telling you the stuff that you need to come before my court?

[Sam Stein]

So I think the distinction here is, the distinction here is they're saying, well, this is not enough time. Like, the Supreme Court decision happened last night. You're giving us a few hours. This is an incredibly delicate process. Like, we have to consider national security implications. I'm not quite sure what those are. We can get into that later. And then the judge says, well, okay, but at least detail the steps you've taken to this point to locate the man and to facilitate or expedite or whatever word you want to say, his return, which has been demanded by the Supreme Court decision. So there's the difference between taking the actions, at least detailing the step you will take. And they wouldn't do the latter. And the fact that they refused to do the latter raises some serious questions about both compliance with judicial decrees and whether they ever will, in fact, bring this man back, which, frankly, I think is very much up in the air at this point.

[Andrew Egger]

It definitely seems like they're laying the groundwork to make a real stand here, which is just, I mean, it's just mind boggling. This is another thing that the judge really drilled down on. She said, I had a valid order to you guys to Start figuring out how to get this guy back days ago. You know, like, like the Supreme Court eventually stayed that order, but it was in effect for days. You had days during which you were supposed to be doing that. Can you name a single step that you guys took, you being the administration during that period, in order to at least get the ball rolling on this stuff? And they just utterly stonewalled her on every single question.

[Sam Stein]

One exchange that Kyle Cheney, good bud of mine at Politico who's been on top of this more than any reporter. One exchange he highlights is the judge says, all right, give me an update on Abrego Garcia's current physical location and custodo status. Government lawyer says, we're still internally reviewing the Supreme Court's decision and vetting what we can say to the court. Judge says, what do you mean? It's just a direct question. What is his status? And you know, they went back and forth, they did this and the judge obviously grew frustrated. The government lawyers basically are of the, of the place where they're saying we can't share information yet because we believe that this is of such national security implications and considerations that it falls without, outside the purview of the court. And they're hanging it all on one line in the Supreme Court decision that says, you know, foreign affairs are the purview of the executive and so on and so forth. I will say the judge has given them more time. Judges said, okay, I want daily updates. The government has asked until Tuesday, which is four days from now, to get them some sort of information. And even then they said they might have to evoke state secrets. So we're at a real, we're at a real moment here where it's hard to see how this resolves, frankly.

[Andrew Egger]

Yeah, yeah. And for what it's worth, the judge basically denied the government the opportunity to push till Tuesday. She says she wants daily updates, daily updates on all this stuff. But, but what, what seems significant about the Tuesday deadline in particular is that the government was trying to push the date of next check in past Monday when President Bukele is coming to the White House to meet with Donald Trump. To meet with President Trump. Right. And that's, that's the truly insane part of all this. Like we're talking about how there are these national security implications that are, that are coming into play here. And that is, I guess, in some strict technical sense, true because, you know, it involves multi nation diplomacy at this point. But, but this is the thing here, is the way that like the lawlessness follows on the lawlessness. Right. Because this is a situation that Donald Trump has deliberately set up. Right. Where he's treating El Salvador and Bukele in particular as sort of his client jailers for these people that he has held. Obviously, everybody knows.

[Sam Stein]

Well, you said.

[Andrew Egger]

Nobody would dispute that. Sorry.

[Sam Stein]

You said a key word there, which is client. We're paying.

[Podcast Host]

No, we're.

[Andrew Egger]

There's not a single person on earth who would dispute that, that Bukele would hand this guy back if Donald Trump.

[Sam Stein]

My point is that we are paying. We are paying for the incarceration of this man, which makes us a contract which is functionally different than national security. Right. Like we are actually entering into contract for the incarceration of this man, which means that we, I think, legally and technically surely do have or the right to have a status update on this person. So the idea that they wouldn't know where he is or don't have any responsibility over it seems totally false to me. And then you mentioned the other thing, which is that is coming on Monday. Like, if they really wanted this to happen, if they knew where this man was and I don't know if they know where this man is, that could be something we need to consider. Maybe they've lost him. Think about that.

[Andrew Egger]

Can I.

[Sam Stein]

If they wanted him back, they would get him on the plane. They could. And they bring him back. Yes, but they don't want him back.

[Andrew Egger]

Well, and that's the point, like, to just to drill down. There's a reason why the seeming ridiculous legalese of facilitate versus effectuate matters here because facilitate, essentially what they're saying is, you know, a court can't actually command the Trump White House to go out and make another country implement some policy. You couldn't put in a court order to say the government's going to make China drop all its tariffs on the US to take an extreme example. But, but because of the specifics of this situation, everybody knows. Everybody knows that, that Bukele would give this guy back if asked. The weird thing is that what the court is now ordering the Trump administration to do is to strain every nerve to get him back. But Bukele knows that Trump doesn't want him back. And so that's why, I mean, he's, he, he has been out there publicly mocking, as Judge Bukele has publicly mocking this judge's orders, you know, as they've actively been going into effect with, by the way, various constellation people in the MAGA movement publicly telling Bekele, don't listen to the judge, you know, defy the order because, because Trump has been commanded to try, but he doesn't want. So like, so where does that leave you? I mean, like, is Trump gonna, gonna get up on Monday and say, hey, you know, this judge says we really want this guy back. Yeah, give him back. And Bukele's gonna say, ah, you know, like what's actually gonna happen?

[Sam Stein]

Nobody knows it's a crisis the way he doesn't yet. And but to what end? Right? It's like, I think we all sort of predicted that they would at some point defy a court order. But what is on this one? Why this one? Right? Like, is it, is it so important to them that they have the right to deport anyone in the middle of the night and say, well, they're overseas, matter of national security, we can't do anything about it? Is that the one where they're going to, you know, show defiance? I guess once you show defiance, you can show defiance on all of them. And the other thing that I would say is it, it's interesting that they did this right after the Supreme Court. I think there's going to be a lot of stuff in front of the Supreme Court. Obviously there's already a lot of stuff in front of the Supreme Court. In a normal world, if you are justice on the Supreme Court and you see the president defying your, your order, you get pissed. And that might factor into your, the considerations that you make when you issue future opinions. I have no faith that, you know, Clarence Thomas or is going to like change his, his colors over this stuff, but I do think there's some politics that needs to be considered here about how they're handling this. And maybe they don't give a fuck. Honestly. They probably don't. They probably don't. But I think it's a combination. Some people, I think some people in the administration or in the Justice Department are wondering, is it worth burning our capitol with the court on this?

[Andrew Egger]

Yeah, I think it's a combination of a couple of things because one, in general this fight over the Alien Enemies act and the deportees to the El Salvador prison, all that stuff that was in general a fight the administration really wanted to have that I think they saw that as very fertile ground for, for fighting the court. The problem is that they rolled it out so kind of ham fistedly and swept up people who shouldn't have been swept up in it and all of this stuff.

[Sam Stein]

I mean, they had to acknowledge in court they mistakenly sent this guy, I mean, so.

[Andrew Egger]

And then fired the lawyer who, who made those admissions in court. I mean, like, like it's very clear that, that they're like, this was their plan going in. But they don't just have a plan. They also have, you know, this, this complete unwillingness to, to pull back on anything. This complete unwillingness to, you know, admit guilt or retreat or. Because as soon as you start doing that on one thing, the whole, the whole kind of like the momentum of, of the Trump assault on, on the courts and the rule of law and all of this stuff becomes blunted a little bit because you've drawn blood, the law has drawn blood against the administration. So you could make the argument that it is, it is as though, even though this guy is certainly not the most advantageous fight for the administration to be having obviously on the merits since he's innocent and a judge ordered that he couldn't be deported to El Salvador, they're stuck having to having to provoke the crisis based on this insanely tenuous ground just because of, of their own kind of blunders in getting here. But that doesn't mean they're not serious about fighting on this ground.

[Sam Stein]

No, they're very, it's really worrisome. It's very serious. It's extremely worrisome. It's a nightmare scenario for a lot of people out there and certainly the lawyers who've been warning that there will be a defiance of the court. It looks like we have it. We'll keep tabs of it. Scary stuff. Andrew, thanks for breaking this down with us. Thank you guys for watching.

[Podcast Host]

Ready to plug into the future of podcasting? The podcast show is back. The biggest international festival for the business of podcasting hits London on the 21st and 22nd of May. Join over 10,000 creators, brands and audio pros for two packed days at the Business Design center in Islington. We're talking over 130 game changing sessions with industry heavyweights, award winning talent and exclusive parties and networking events that go way beyond the show. And that's not all. The podcast show live brings your favorite podcasts to life at venues across London all week long. Day passes start from just 109 pounds. Book now at the podcastshow London. Com.