Shownotes Transcript
What if you could see the world not just as it is, but as it could be? Digital maps hold the key. Unlock hidden connections and anticipate future trends simply by understanding where things happen. It's how cities prepare for extreme weather events, like fires and floods. It's how businesses find more of their best customers. It's how logistics companies find the most fuel and cost-efficient routes. Gain a decision-making edge. Learn more at GIS.com.
From The New York Times, I'm Rachel Abrams, and this is The Daily. At the White House on Monday, President Trump met with El Salvador's President Nayib Bukele with the fate of one man hanging in the balance. Today, my colleague Adam Liptec on the Maryland man who was mistakenly sent to a notoriously brutal prison in El Salvador and what his case, which tests the limit of presidential power, means for the rule of law.
It's Tuesday, April 15th. So, Adam, we have talked a lot on this show about the Trump administration's efforts to crack down on immigration and deport people really quickly. We've talked about the Venezuelan migrants, students at Columbia and other schools. But today we want to zero in on one case in particular, this man from Maryland. Can you start by telling us who is he and how did he end up where he is?
So his name is Kilmar Abrego Garcia. He was born in El Salvador in 1995. He moved to the United States when he was 16 years old after a gang in El Salvador threatened him in trying to extort money from his family's business. He arrives here in 2011, enters without authorization, finds work, goes about his business, and
and is arrested in 2019 on immigration offenses. He has then and now never had a criminal record in El Salvador or the United States and goes before an immigration judge. And the judge, and this is important, issues a ruling that says he faces dire consequences if he were to be sent back to El Salvador.
And the judge issues a ruling that says you may not deport him to El Salvador. And he goes on living in the United States, has a work permit, checks in with the immigration authorities every year, gets married, is raising three kids. And a few weeks ago, he is detained again. And this time he gets no process.
He is sent to Louisiana, a detention facility, and then is put on an airplane to El Salvador, the one place he cannot be deported to under the immigration law. And moreover, he's sent to El Salvador to a notoriously inhumane, squalid, and dangerous prison there.
called the Center for Terrorism Confinement. And there he sits. And his lawyers go to court in Maryland. And the lawyer says, there's been a terrible injustice here. We've got to get him back. And the government's initial response is, that's right. There's been an administrative error here. This shouldn't have happened. He shouldn't be in El Salvador. The lawyers initially say, we're looking into it. We're trying to figure out how to fix it.
The lawyer says he's not getting cooperation from his superiors. At the government. Yes. But everybody agrees this shouldn't have happened. And you might think the answer is to take steps.
to bring him back. But then the administration, as this goes up the food chain in the Trump administration, starts to dig in his heels. And here's a bad sign for Mr. Obrego-Garcia. The government lawyer who made those concessions is put on administrative leave because Pam Bondi, the U.S. Attorney General, says the lawyer had not
zealously represented the position of the United States. Just because they admitted a mistake? Because the lawyer did the ordinary thing expected of an American attorney in an American courtroom, which is to be candid with the court. There's one, you know, zealous advocacy is one thing, but you also have an obligation as an officer of the court to tell the truth. So what does the Maryland judge say about all of this?
She couldn't be more appalled. She says this shocks the conscience.
that this kind of lawless behavior is un-American. And she orders the government to facilitate and effectuate—and those words may become important as we talk about this—his return in very short order. She tells the government to bring him home. And can we just pause here for a second before we get to the facilitate and effectuate language?
Why does the judge say that this shocks the conscience? Like, what exactly is she finding so egregious about all of this? A couple things. One, that this was in plain violation of a court order. Two, that he wasn't afforded the merest amount of due process. And if he had been afforded that, he could have made two points. One, that he's exempt from being deported.
to El Salvador, and two, that if there are other things to be said about his life, he could dispute that, put in evidence, call witnesses. He was afforded neither of those things. And so how does the government respond to all of this? What is the case that they're making exactly about why they deported this man? So as the case moves up through the legal system, the government never backs off its concession
that this was an oversight, a mistake. But they now say that they're not capable of fixing the mistake because Mr. Obrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador and the United States is powerless to retrieve him. And the government starts to lean on a theory that Obrego Garcia is a member of an El Salvador gang, MS-13.
They have very little evidence for this. A confidential informant, we don't know who this is, accused Obrego Garcia of being affiliated with an upstate New York branch of the gang. He says he's never been to upstate New York. And in any event, even if everything was true...
even if he's a member of this gang, even if that's criminal conduct, even if it's criminal conduct in the United States, that still doesn't give the government the right to deport him. Maybe it gives them the right to prosecute him in the United States. Maybe it gives them the right to send him somewhere other than El Salvador. But the one thing we know is that it's unlawful to send him to El Salvador. And their legal argument basically consists of
It's a pity it happened. Shouldn't have happened. But now that he's in El Salvador, we have no way of getting him back. So then what happens next? It goes to a federal appeals court. All three judges on the federal appeals court say the government needs to take steps to get him back. It then goes to the U.S. Supreme Court. And in what is basically a unanimous decision,
The Supreme Court affirms most of what the trial judge said. Remember, the judge used two verbs, facilitate and effectuate. And the court in an unsigned decision bears down on those two words and endorses facilitate. You got to get to work, people. You have to take steps to
Clearly, something has gone wrong here. And the court says, take steps to fix it. But the court stops short of endorsing effectuate. It says it's not quite clear what the judge meant by that and that it's possible that it goes too far. The court doesn't like to, doesn't want to tell the president how to conduct foreign affairs, how to
supervise the immigration system. And in practical terms, what does this mean for the government's obligation, this distinction between effectuate and facilitate? I think what it means is that the court is not ordering an outcome. It's ordering process. But the thrust of the court's decision is, let's be serious.
You got to get them back. So basically, it's the difference between a should and a must. The court is basically saying, do everything you can. But if you ultimately can't bring them back, then you've fulfilled your obligation. That puts it very well. That's right.
It also feels like the ruling gives the administration some leeway, right? Because the ruling is basically telling the government, please try. So if the government, for example, you know, says, well, look, we called up the president of El Salvador and we asked him nicely and he said no, we did our job. That's the end of it, right? So there are things the United States could do. You could extradite Obrego Garcia. If the U.S. contends he's a criminal, start extradition proceedings and have him returned here.
Recall also that we are paying the government of El Salvador $6 million to house these people we've deported there. You would think that alone would give us the power to say, you know what? We're not paying for this guy. Send him back. The United States is a very powerful country. And if it wants to achieve something as simple as having an ally to accomplish something,
It's just beggar's belief that it couldn't be achieved. So if we are in a scenario where facilitate is the order of the day, that essentially still means that the government should be trying all avenues to get this guy home. That's what the Supreme Court said and meant. That's what lower courts have said and meant.
They probably, on some level, didn't think that it would take more than that. You're right, Rachel, in suggesting this is kind of a judicial nudge. It's not an order. This is difficult. The court acknowledges that it owes the president some deference in his conduct of foreign affairs. But still...
I think the courts, and uniformly so, hoped and believed that it wouldn't take very much to persuade the government of the United States to do something when it concedes that a terrible injustice has been done. We'll be right back.
This episode is supported by HubSpot. Growing a business can feel impossible, but HubSpot's customer platform can help. It's powered by Breeze, their suite of AI tools, so you can generate more leads, close more deals, and scale your service fast. With Breeze agents handling the busy work, customers are cutting sales cycles in half and saving hours on work each week.
Best of all, you can see results in days, not months. Visit HubSpot.com slash AI to learn more.
High Five Casino is the top sweepstakes casino that's free to play. Sign up today to receive a free welcome bonus and exclusive first purchase offers. Choose the premium jackpot package for $29.99 and claim up to 700 game coins, 55 sweeps coins, one sweeps coin daily bonus for five days, and 400 diamonds. Your high five moment awaits at highfivecasino.com. No purchase necessary. Boardware prohibited by law. Must be 21 years or older. Terms and conditions apply.
So, Adam, this judicial nudge, as you put it, even if it's not a demand on the administration, it seems like it would be a win for Abrego Garcia. Because, as you say, there's a lot of levers that the administration could pull here to try to get this man back. But he's obviously still not home. So what happened after the Supreme Court issued its decision in this case? Abrego Garcia's lawyer issued a statement saying,
after the Supreme Court ruled that said the rule of law has prevailed. Bring him home. And there was a sense, at least initially, that the administration would say, okay, we hear the nudge. We'll take steps and we'll bring him home. But almost immediately, it became clear that the administration had no particular interest in doing that. So tell us about that. What does the administration do right after the ruling?
So the court rules on Thursday evening, and Friday morning, the trial judge says, I want answers. I want a status report. I want to know what you're doing, what steps you're taking to bring Abrego Garcia home. That also echoes language in the Supreme Court's order. And the administration on Friday morning says, you know what? We need more time.
We're not ready to come talk to you. Why don't you set this down, not for Friday, not over the weekend, not for Monday, but for Tuesday? And the judge is flabbergasted by that idea. After all, Abrego Garcia has been wrongly confined in El Salvador for a month by then.
And she says, no, I want answers right now. And I want daily reports on what's happening here, what you're doing to get them back. And those daily reports start to come in and they are very thin. They don't indicate that the administration is doing anything. The administration almost grudgingly says, well, he's alive and he's being held at this terrorism prison and he's
Essentially says nothing more other than that we are powerless to get him back. He's in the hands of another nation's sovereign authorities. And the judge's attempts to get this thing rolling are stymied. It sounds like they're not really doing anything to heed any of the requests or demands that they do something to bring this man home.
No, the government gets more and more hostile, more and more dug in, until on Sunday they, in essence, tell the judge that she's powerless to do anything. So basically we're back where we started, right? The government is returning to this argument that you, the courts, can't tell us what to do when it comes to foreign policy. Right, and also that we don't want to.
get him back. Mr. President, it's an honor to have you. Thank you. You're doing incredibly for your country. So this was brought into vivid relief on Monday when El Salvador's president, President Nayib Bukele, pays a visit to Donald Trump
in the Oval Office and is asked, Can President Bukele weigh in on this? Do you plan to return him? Are you going to send Fabrino Garcia back? How can I return him to the United States? Like, could I smuggle him into the United States or what do I do? Of course, I'm not going to do it. And he treats that as a kind of laughable question. The question is preposterous. How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? I don't have the power to return him to the United States. He says, what am I going to do?
send a terrorist into the United States? So you could tell that the two presidents, Trump and Bukele, were on the same page and had no interest in returning Obrego Garcia to Maryland. Would you answer that question also, please? Yes, gladly. So, as Pam mentioned... And the president's chief immigration advisor, Stephen Miller, pipes up... Yeah, so it's a 9-0...
In our favor. In our favor against the district court ruling saying that no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States. And proposes an interpretation of the Supreme Court decision in the Abrego Garcia case, which is that it was a nine to nothing win for the administration because of its reference to
to the president's power to conduct foreign affairs. And so focusing on a phrase in the decision, Stephen Miller completely flips what is the great bulk and thrust of the court's opinion. So basically they're spinning this as a victory. Exactly. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you, President. They say that the Supreme Court
has essentially said, not we're nudging you, you should bring him home, but rather you decide. You get to decide in the area of foreign affairs and immigration who gets deported, who doesn't, whom you bring back, whom you don't. And so the two sides managed to read the same judicial decision quite differently.
So, Adam, we have had you on the show before talking about whether the various showdowns between the administration and courts are leading toward a constitutional crisis. And it feels like a distinction that has been made before is that
There's a difference between the administration making a legal argument, no matter how bad legal scholars say it is, and the administration openly flouting a court and saying, we're not going to listen to you. And I just sort of wonder, like, where this case sits within that distinction. So that's a very good question, Rachel. And we used to think that there are two things that could go on. There's the administration making weak arguments
not very persuasive arguments, but still kind of doing law. And then at the other end of the spectrum, the administration being told to do something and refusing to do it. And that's defiance. And that's the classic constitutional crisis. So here we have something I didn't anticipate, a third thing, where everybody acknowledges that the initial deportation in the Abrego Garcia case was unlawful.
And yet the administration continues to make kind of legalistic arguments defending it. And this third thing may be the constitutional crisis everyone's been waiting for. It doesn't take the classic form, but it gets you to pretty much the same place. Adam, I think that probably there are a lot of people out there that might say something along the lines of, this man was in the country illegally. There's a reason to think that he's a gang member.
you know, trust the president. Maybe there are some mistakes along the way, but by and large, why are you guys getting all worked up about this? We send him back to where he belongs. What would you say to those people that might think that? What I would say is that there's really nothing in the administration's legal logic that would prohibit the administration from picking an American citizen off the street. Send them to
a vicious prison in another country where torture is routine, conceitedly lawlessly, and then say, whoops, sorry, nothing we can do about it. You're going to spend the rest of your days there. The legal logic of the Obrego-Garcia case is no different than the legal logic of sending Rachel Abrams or Adam Liptak
to El Salvador for the rest of our days. So basically, if they can do this, what else can they do? The logic and implications of the administration's position can only be called deeply disturbing. Adam, thank you very much. Thank you, Rachel. On Tuesday, the district court judge has scheduled a hearing to discuss what the administration must do to try and bring Kilmar Abrego-Garcia home. We'll be right back.
High Five Casino is the top social casino that's free to play. Sign up today to receive a free welcome bonus and exclusive first purchase offers. Choose the Lucky Deal package for $9.99 and claim up to 550 game coins, 33 sweeps coins, one sweep coin daily bonus for four days, and 350 diamonds. Your High Five moment awaits at HighFiveCasino.com. No purchase necessary. Void where prohibited by law. Must be 21 years or older. Terms and conditions apply.
This podcast is supported by GoodRx. Looking for relief from allergies this spring? Pay as little as $15 for common allergy medications with GoodRx. Plus, find savings on everyday prescriptions for you and your family. GoodRx lets you compare prescription prices at over 70,000 pharmacies and instantly find discounts of up to 80%. And even if you have insurance or Medicare, GoodRx may beat your copay price. Stop allergy season in its tracks. Go to GoodRx.com slash the daily.
Here's what else you need to know today. In a sharply worded letter on Monday, the president of Harvard rejected demands from the Trump administration that he said would diminish the power of students and faculty. The move set up a showdown between the school and the government, and the reaction from the Trump administration was swift, with officials immediately freezing more than $2 billion in funding to the university.
And the White House is planning to ask Congress to claw back more than a billion dollars slated for public broadcasting, a move that could ultimately eliminate almost all federal support for NPR and PBS. While government money accounts for a small part of the broadcaster's budgets, losing it could be devastating for local public radio stations, which rely on the money to finance their newsrooms and pay for programming.
Today's episode was produced by Sydney Harper, Muj Saidi, and Rob Zipko. It was edited by Lexi Diao. It contains original music by Marianne Lozano, Diane Wong, Alicia Beitube, and Pat McCusker, and was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. That's it for The Daily. I'm Rachel Abrams. See you tomorrow.
This podcast is supported by Signify Business Cash by Wells Fargo. As a business owner, you wear a lot of hats. One minute you're ordering today's inventory and the next you're planning tomorrow's expansion.
It's complicated, but your business credit card should be simple. With the Signify Business Cash Card by Wells Fargo, you earn unlimited 2% cash rewards on purchases for your business with no caps or categories to track. Signify Business Cash, the deliberately simple business credit card. Learn more at wellsfargo.com slash signify. Terms apply.