For daily news updates and analysis, be sure to follow us on Instagram.
WATCH ALERT: I’ll be going live with Paul Krugman on Substack this Thursday, 5pm ET/2p PT. Please join us!
In a hearing Tuesday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis told Trump administration officials that she will have “no tolerance for gamesmanship or grandstanding.”
But so far, that’s what she’s getting.
The government was back in a Maryland court facing the same federal judge who earlier this month ordered the DOJ to “facilitate” and “effectuate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man who was wrongly removed to an El Salvador prison. Judge Xinis told government lawyers that “To date, what the record shows is that nothing has been done, nothing,” and, in her view, this is in defiance of a “clear” order from the Supreme Court. She was referring to a unanimous order issued last week by all 9 justices directing the administration to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return. The Trump administration has so far refused to bring him back, arguing that the Supreme Court ordered them to “facilitate” but not “effectuate” Abrego Garcia’s return. Attorney General Pam Bondi maintains this simply means the US must “provide a plane” for Abrego Garcia but El Salvador doesn’t want to return him so the US government’s hands are tied.
Judge Xinis found this argument unpersuasive, to put it mildly. Now, she says, she will order an “intense” inquiry in which the government must provide the court with documents and testimony from Trump administration officials detailing the steps they’ve taken to return Abrego Garcia. She said this process will last two weeks. The Trump Administration could appeal this to the Supreme Court. And then what?
To better understand the hearing and the legal questions involved I spoke with Cordozo Law Professor Jessica Roth. She explains what this “intense” inquiry might involve, how the government might respond and what recourse the courts have if the Trump Administration refuses to cooperate. We also discuss the larger implications and whether this amounts to a Constitutional crisis.
It’s short and to the point — less than 15 minutes.
Paid subscribers: please share any questions in comments. And a reminder:
Want more information?
Please share this newsletter with family, friends, and anyone who wants to get the news and turn down the noise. And if you’d like to sponsor our newsletter or our Instagram content, please reach out to us at community@newsnotnoise.com.
