Concerns are rising among commentators from various ideological backgrounds regarding President Donald Trump’s resistance to comply with court mandates concerning his immigration policies. The conservative publication National Review has criticized Trump for failing to address what they describe as an “obvious injustice” involving the wrongful deportation of a migrant from El Salvador. A conservative legal analyst pointed out that the administration’s decision to defer the resolution to El Salvador reflects a “bad faith” interpretation of a US Supreme Court directive, which instructed the White House to aid in the migrant’s return.
Further criticism has emerged from The Atlantic, where commentary suggests the White House is merely simulating compliance while refusing actual execution of the court’s orders. Ezra Klein of The New York Times has expressed concern over a potential constitutional crisis, suggesting that the government is effectively sending individuals to a Salvadoran prison for terrorists.
Georgetown law professor Steve Vladec has weighed in on the matter, describing the US Supreme Court’s order for the White House to assist the return of the deported migrant as “deliberately vague.” He suggests that the Court is cautious about setting a definitive boundary with the administration, providing Trump with ample “maneuvering room” to avoid a direct confrontation. Vladec also noted that the justices have made minimal efforts to hold Trump accountable for his disparaging remarks about judges and his disregard for court decisions. A legal expert indicated to CNN that from the administration’s perspective, continuing disrespect towards lower court judges might seem like a strategic gamble, as adverse legal consequences have yet to materialize.