Donald Trump (1:49)

I'd like to go a step further. I said it to Pam. I don't know what the laws are. We always have to obey the laws, but we, we also have homegrown criminals that push people into subways, that hit elderly ladies on the back of the head with a baseball bat when they're not looking, that are absolute monsters. I'd like to include them in the group of people to get them out of the country.

Matt Ford (2:14)

In other words, exiling US citizens for committing a crime. Which brings us back around to Matt Ford's 11th great grandparents.

Legal Expert (2:22)

In the grand scope of American history, these practices are not unheard of, but they are also now pretty far disregarded. You know, you look at the Colonial.

Matt Ford (2:30)

War, you had to go way back.

Legal Expert (2:31)

To your 11th grandparents to find something 1660s. Yeah. And we know that that practice died out before the revolution and it sort of became verboten thereafter.

Matt Ford (2:45)

Consider this no president has tried to do exactly what Trump is proposing, but Matt Ford says the law is clear. It would be wildly unconstitutional. From npr, I'm Mary Louise Kelly.

Mary Louise Kelly (3:05)

NPR informs and connects communities around the country, providing reliable information in times of crisis. Federal funding helps us fulfill our mission to create a more informed public and ensures that public radio remains available to everyone. Learn more about safeguarding the future of public media, visit protectmypublicmedia.org 99% of the U.S. population lives within listening range of at least one public media station, and everyone can listen to NPR podcasts free of charge.

Legal Expert (3:37)

That means you get completely unpaywalled access.

Mary Louise Kelly (3:40)

To stories, prize winning reporting, and shows that represent the voices in every corner of the country. Hear the bigger picture every day on npr.

NPR Announcer (3:50)

Wait, wait, don't tell me. Fresh Air up first, NPR News. Now Planet Money TED Radio Hour Throughline the NPR Politics Podcast Code Switch Embedded books we love Wildcard are just some of the podcasts you can enjoy. Sponsor free with NPR. Get all sorts of perks across more than 20 podcasts with the bundle option. Learn more at plus.NPR.org.

Matt Ford (4:20)

It'S consider this from NPR. When President Trump talks about his idea to send U.S. citizens to Salvadoran prisons, he hedges on the legality, says his attorney general is looking into it.

Donald Trump (4:33)

We're studying the laws right now. Pam is studying. If we can do that, that's good.

Matt Ford (4:38)

Matt Ford has been studying the laws on this, too. He reports on the courts for the New Republic, and I sat down with him to talk about his new p into the legal and historical precedents for what Trump is proposing. I want to start with the headline for your piece, which reads Trump's Wildly Unconstitutional Plot to Banish US Citizens to Gulags. Wildly Unconstitutional.

Legal Expert (5:03)

Well, when we speak of things that are constitutional unconstitutional, it's not always a bright line. Some of the parts of the Constitution are up for interpretation. You know, what is cruel and unusual punishment? What is due process? What is a reasonable search and seizure, banishment and exile. On the other hand, there really is no basis for that in the Constitution or in any federal law.

Matt Ford (5:21)

As you reported this out, as you called around to various legal experts, you found no one who could see any basis for this in the Constitution.

Legal Expert (5:28)

Well, it's tough because, you know, on one hand, the courts have never really ruled on it. That's what makes it so striking. And because nobody's tried It. Nobody's done it. And so, you know, I can't find a Supreme Court opinion. I can't point one to you and cite one where the justices 50 or 100 years ago said banishment is unconstitutional, exile is unconstitutional. But when you look at the grand scope of how the courts think about deportation, extradition, citizenship, it's pretty clear that it would be a disfavored practice. And we know that also from American history.

Matt Ford (5:59)

I want to play one other moment from that Oval Office meeting. This is when President Trump is asked explicitly if he's talking about US Citizens.

Donald Trump (6:09)

Yeah, yeah. That includes them. Why do you think there's special category of person? They're as bad as anybody that comes in. We have bad ones, too.

Matt Ford (6:16)

Matt Ford, are U.S. citizens a special category of person under U.S. law?

Legal Expert (6:21)

Constitutionally speaking, in many ways they are. I mean, American citizens are the only ones who can vote, they're the only ones who can serve on juries, and they have a automatic right to live in this country. The general practice is they can't be denied re entry if they leave, which is sort of a constitutional barrier in and of itself to the idea that they would be exiled to a distant land.

Matt Ford (6:40)

There are ways that a US Government can legally remove people from the country. There's deportation that applies to non citizens. Extradition.

Legal Expert (6:51)

Yeah. Extradition stands out to me as the one truly legal pathway that this could happen. It's very rare, but it does happen. Basically, the premise is the United States signs a treaty with another country that sets up the framework. Courts then say you can't deport an American citizen unless there's an explicit requirement in the treaty to do that. The other state has to match US Levels of due process, basic rights. So you can't simply send someone to North Korea. I think those would be an impediment against anything Trump is planning for El Salvador, partly because El Salvador does not appear to meet those levels, partly because the 1911 treaty we have with El Salvador is not considered to be legally sufficient at this moment. And also I. I think significantly enough, because none of the people that Trump seems to be envisioning have committed any crimes in El Salvador. The purpose of extradition is to allow somebody to be tried in another country. In the audio earlier, Trump is describing people who have committed crimes solely in the United States. So I don't think that's a viable pathway for anything that Trump is envisioning here.

Matt Ford (7:52)

I suppose one way around the constitutional protection for US Citizens is to take away that citizenship, to denaturalize Them. You have found examples of the government trying this in the past.

Legal Expert (8:06)

Sure. Up until about the 1960s, it wasn't axiomatic that citizenship was irrevocable. There was a case in 1922 where a group of Chinese Americans went overseas, returned to the United States, they were denied reentry, and the Supreme Court ruled that they had a right to have a tribunal hearing where they could prove that they were citizens. The premise being that if they were citizens, they couldn't be denied reentry. We also know from a case in the 1950s where a man was stripped of his citizenship for draft dodging. He was then put through deportation proceedings. The court struck down that provision of the Immigration Nationality act that denaturalized him. And they since said in the 1963 case of Froy M v. Rusk that citizenship is more or less irrevocable unless done voluntarily. The sole exception for that is for naturalized citizens who lie during the immigration process. But even then, the Supreme Court set an extremely high threshold for that proceeding to be carried out.

Matt Ford (9:03)

And so what changed in the 1960s?

Legal Expert (9:05)

Well, it's part of the sort of the Warren Court's reforms, but it's also part of a general recognition of the value of American citizenship and the rights that come with it. You know, when the Court speaks of citizenship, they speak of it as almost sacrosanct, as something that defines a person's place in the world, defines their ability to participate in a political community, defines their ability to have a home. And so I think that the idea that somebody could be exiled from the United States while being a US Citizen cuts against that in the deepest way possible.

Matt Ford (9:33)

You write that banishment or exile was a form of punishment in the British Empire.

Legal Expert (9:38)

Well, it's interesting because this is the primary American experience with the concept of exile. It comes from the practice the British love, having understated terms for things. They used to call it transportation. They would send prisoners who committed crimes in England, and they would ship them off to far flung parts of the British Empire. Australia, New Zealand were the most common targets. But North America was also one as well. And this would invariably cause a certain amount of consternation among Americans, the early colonists. Why are you sending these people to us? And so I think it underscores the unconstitutionality of this and the outside role it plays in the American constitutional tradition that this was something that early Americans opposed. From the British Crown. Transporting people overseas for offenses was one of the portions of the Declaration of the Independence, one of the grievances against the Crown So there's a very strong historical tradition here that I think would counsel against any sort of constitutional tolerance for exile.

Matt Ford (10:37)

This brings us to the question of whether the Trump administration won't do it anyway, even if sending US Citizens to El Salvador or somewhere else is clearly illegal, unconstitutional. I'm thinking of the case currently in the headlines of Kilmar Abrego Garcia being held in Nelson, Salvador. Multiple Trump administration officials have said he was sent there by mistake. He is not a US Citizen, but he had been granted protection from deportation by an immigration judge.

Legal Expert (11:07)

Right. And he has a right to due process. That was not followed there. One of the reasons that I wanted to explore this question and write this piece was because when we talk about things that presidents do, it's important to set context about where that falls on a constitutional spectrum. Presidents do things every day that are perfectly lawful, perfectly constitutional, even if people disagree with them. Presidents from both parties have done things that are in a little more of a gray zone. Maybe they're reinterpreting authority. Maybe they are applying it in a new scenario. Maybe they are using law in a way Congress didn't intend. That's normal and to be expected. This is not one of those scenarios. This is a scenario where there is no that I've been able to find legal or constitutional basis for the idea that you would send someone outside their country of citizenship, outside their country of birth, their nationality, send them to a foreign country that will then hold them indefinitely and deny them the opportunity to return. I can't rule out the possibility that the Trump administration will do it anyways, but I think it's important to set the marker now that there doesn't appear to be any legal or constitutional basis for those actions.

Matt Ford (12:13)

Matt Ford, staff writer at the New Republic, talking about his new piece, Trump's wildly unconstitutional plot to banish US Citizens to gulags. Not Ford. Thank you.

Legal Expert (12:24)

Thank you for having me.

Matt Ford (12:28)

This episode was produced by Connor Donovan. It was edited by Courtney Dorning. Our executive producer is Sammy Yenigun. It's consider this from npr. I'm Mary Louise Kelly.

Legal Expert (12:49)

At Planet Money. We'll take you from a race to make rum in the Caribbean.

Matt Ford (12:53)

Our rum, from a quality standpoint, is the best in the world.

Legal Expert (12:56)

To the labs dreaming up the most advanced microchips.

Matt Ford (13:00)

It's very rare for people to go.

Legal Expert (13:01)

Inside to the back rooms of New York's Diamond District.

Matt Ford (13:05)

What are you looking for? The stupid guy here.

Legal Expert (13:07)

They're all smart. Don't worry about Planet Money. From npr. We go to the story and take you along with us wherever you get your podcasts.

Mary Louise Kelly (13:14)

Having news at your fingertips is great, but sometimes you need an escape and that's where Short Wave 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 Short Wave, the science podcast from npr. 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@plus.NPR.org that's plus.NPR.org.