Updated: Paul Mirengoff (writing before he became aware that the Supremes had acted in favor of Mr. Abrego Garcia tonight) pussy-foots around what he knows is a terrible violation of due process — compounded by willful destain from Kristi Noem for the rule of law. The bad faith in that courtroom from the government proponents was palpable. That’s not being tough. That’s OBSTRUCTION of justice. He is too much a coward to say so. But that is what it is. End updated portion.

It is insane that US Supreme Court Justices are now having to offer remedial courses on due process, to what are supposed to be the best US Government lawyers in the land. But that is where we are, in the time of incompetence and chaos… simply put, in the time of Trump.

Here is the unsigned opinion (just published), without any dissents — and only one concurrence, from Sotomayor — to teach Noem a lil’ law. And so, here is the best bit — of that concurrence:

…Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an “oversight.” Decl. of R. Cerna in No. 25–cv–951 (D Md., Mar. 31, 2025), ECF Doc. 11–3, p. 3. The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law.

The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008). The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 8). That view refutes itself. Because every factor governing requests for equitable relief manifestly weighs against the Government, Nken v. Holder, 556 U. S. 418, 426 (2009), I would have declined to intervene in this litigation and denied the application in full.

Nevertheless, I agree with the Court’s order that the proper remedy is to provide Abrego Garcia with all the process to which he would have been entitled had he not been unlawfully removed to El Salvador. That means the Government must comply with its obligation to provide Abrego Garcia with “due process of law,” including notice and an opportunity to be heard, in any future proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993).

It must also comply with its obligations under the Convention Against Torture. See Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100–20, 1465 U. N. T. S. 113. Federal law governing detention and removal of immigrants continues, of course, to be binding as well. See 8 U. S. C. §1226(a) (requiring a warrant before a noncitizen “may be arrested and detained pending a decision” on removal); 8 CFR §287.8(c)(2)(ii) (2024) (requiring same); see also 8 CFR §241.4(l) (in order to revoke conditional release, the Government must provide adequate notice and “promptly” arrange an “initial informal interview… to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for the revocation stated in the notification”). Moreover, it has been the Government’s own well-established policy to “facilitate [an] alien’s return to the United States if… the alien’s presence is necessary for continued administrative removal proceedings” in cases where a noncitizen has been removed pending immigration proceedings. See U. S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Directive 11061.1, Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens, §2 (Feb. 24, 2012).

In the proceedings on remand, the District Court should continue to ensure that the Government lives up to its obligations to follow the law…

Well… it is an ugly win, but a win nonetheless. I’ll take it — and I am sure his wife and children are relieved.

नमस्ते

First thing this morning, his lawyers filed a “sur-reply” in the Supreme Court. They did so to point out just how egregious the “shifting sands of lies” have been, as to his abduction, kidnapping, actually — and rendition to a Salvadoran hell-hole.

Wake up, Justices KBJ, Kagan and Sotomayor — demand a quick straw-vote, on the petition the Chief is… sitting on. Summarily order his immediate release — get him home — on a government plane today. Right now — here is that new filing, and a bit:

…The Government’s attack on the injunction’s use of the verb “effectuate” all but concedes that the order appropriately requires it to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. To “facilitate an alien’s return” includes “engag[ing] in activities which allow a lawfully removed alien to travel to the United States.” Reply 6 (citing ICE Policy Directive No. 11061.1, § 3.1, Facilitating the Return to the United States of Certain Lawfully Removed Aliens (Feb. 24, 2012) (capitalization omitted)). The only thing preventing Abrego Garcia from returning to the United States is the Government’s arrangement to have him incarcerated in El Salvador. See SA096-100; Opp. 2. . . .

Recognizing that the Government’s concession below that it lacks a “satisfactory” answer as to why it “can’t” bring Abrego Garcia back is case-dispositive, the Government’s Reply (at 5) takes the extreme step of disavowing its own lawyer’s statements. Yet the Government still has not supplied a satisfactory answer to that central question. It points to no evidence—only pure conjecture about El Salvador’s general views on criminal enforcement. But Abrego Garcia left El Salvador as a teenager in 2011 and has not been charged with a crime there (or here). The United States arranged his incarceration and surely can arrange his release.

Nowhere in any of its briefs has the Government stated that the United States is actually powerless to facilitate and effectuate Abrego Garcia’s return. It can and it should….

Courts would cease to function if they could no longer rely on concessions by counsel at oral argument. There is no basis for the Government to withdraw the good-faith admissions of its experienced agent simply because it now finds them inconvenient….

This is an astonishingly deplorable position the US has taken, in the person of Kristi Noem. Onward!

नमस्ते