President Donald Trump has been testing the boundaries of checks and balances in the U.S. since he started his second term in the White House earlier this year. Now the nation is waiting to see what consequences a president faces for ignoring court orders.
David Schultz, professor of political science and law at Hamline University, joined WWL’s Tommy Tucker this week to talk about the latest in the standoff between Trump and the courts. Their talk centered around the case of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a man who was erroneously deported to El Salvador.
“As we know, the Trump administration, or Trump said that he wants to deport lots of people who are illegal in the United States,” said Schultz. “They did a roundup several weeks ago of individuals, and included in that group of individuals was a person who was deported even though he had no criminal record in the United States,” and added that that hearings required by the U.S. Constitution were not held before the deportations.
Schultz explained: “Like… this is not the movie ‘Casablanca’ where you just round up the usual suspects. It’s supposed to be – you have hearings, you make determinations... before you can make any kind of action.”
Even though the move was challenged and a judge said that the people could not be sent out of the U.S. without a hearing, the Trump administration did not turn the planes away as that judge ordered. In Garcia’s case, he was sent back to a place where he is danger of being tortured and had been given amnesty in the U.S. for that reason, Jamie Rowen, associate professor of legal studies at UMass Amherst and director of the Center for Justice, Law, and Societies, told Tucker earlier this week.
“It appears now, according to all the facts that the secretary of state and the government disregarded what the order was, to bring him back,” said Schultz.
In response, the judge requested that the Trump administration give daily reports on their efforts to bring Garcia back. Still, it looks like the Trump administration in not cooperating, and Schultz said the judge is now “contemplating contempt of court against on individuals in the Trump administration.”
“This is not just about one person this is about a broader issue about the constitution due process it’s about the right of people to have hearings before the government just rounds you up. And that’s why this is such a significant case, because it’s one person. But it’s about a broader, broader principle,” he said.
Another issue testing the check and balance between the executive and judicial branches revolves around Trump’s attempts to limit birthright citizenship. Audacy reported Thursday on the Supreme Court scheduling a special sitting on the topic to address the administrations argument against national injunctions issued by judges.