Breaking right now. The Supreme Court has just ruled that the Trump administration must facilitate the return of Kilmer Abrego. Garcia. He's the man who the Trump administration has admitted they mistakenly deported to the Terrorism Confinement Center, aka the infamous prison in El Salvador. [00:00:16] We need to be clear. The Supreme Court is not requiring the return of Abrego Garcia. They are saying they have to do it, but they're not requiring it. Here's what we mean. In an unsigned order, the court endorsed part of a trial judge's order that had [00:00:33] required the government to, quote, facilitate and effectuate the return of the migrant Kilmer Armando Abrego Garcia. The Supreme Court's order, which was unsigned with no noted dissents, read as follows. The order properly requires the government to facilitate Abrego Garcia's release [00:00:48] from custody in El Salvador, and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term effectuate in the district Court court's order is, however, unclear and may exceed the district court's authority. [00:01:04] Quote, the district court should clarify its directive with due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. The court's three liberal justices also criticized the Trump administration, [00:01:22] writing the government's argument 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. That's from Sotomayor and the other liberal justices. Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor [00:01:39] at Georgetown University Law Center, stated although the ruling makes clear, the district court order can order the Trump administration to facilitate a Garcia's return to the US, it is maddeningly vague about exactly how it's supposed to do so. For instance, if the judge asks the government about the specific arrangements [00:01:56] it's made with the Salvadoran government, and the government invokes the state secrets privilege, what happens then? It is yet again punting in a context in which the government can take advantage of the punt. A loss for Trump on the big question, but a loss for Abrego. Garcia on what matters most. Him coming back here to America, coming back home. [00:02:14] And so they are saying bring them home. They're not saying how or they have to. And it's unconscionable. And it's ridiculous because the Trump administration obviously can just say to El Salvador, we made a mistake. We're sending a plane. Bring this man back. [00:02:30] And they would, of course, do it. Why would they want to pick a fight with you, with us, who we have this new relationship with for bringing money into their country to house the people who are being removed, who are not US citizens. And of course, they would send him right back. [00:02:46] And so it's yet again, like an unforced error or quite intentional from the Trump administration just to scare a lot of people who are not white but are living in this country that you're on watch, you're on notice. Live on edge. We might throw you out of the country at any moment. It's really crazy and despicable. Jake. [00:03:03] Yeah, it's one of the great parts of the Supreme Court decision that I want to get to in a second. And then the absurdity of this case. But first I want to be clear. So they're saying that they're requiring the government. So the Supreme Court is clear and that there's they've ruled [00:03:20] for this person to be returned, and they're requiring it of the government. But they I think they don't know what it means to, quote unquote, facilitate and effectuate the return. And in fact, it's not that I think that they are saying it. [00:03:35] They're saying it's bringing it back to the district court for them to explain under what authority we're bringing them back. But they also said the government must explain what are the different options for bringing him back. So they can't just go, oh, we don't want to do it right. [00:03:51] So I think that that whole thing about, oh, bring it back to the district court and figure out how the hell to get him back is partly real, right? Because I don't I don't know that we've ever had a situation like this where we've had shipped someone to a foreign dungeon and then said, oops, it's the wrong guy. [00:04:08] So now how do we get him back? Well, Ben's absolutely right. In practice. You just say it and then give it back to you. It's not like the the dictator in, in El Salvador is going to say no to Trump. If Trump asks for the guy back, he'll be on the back on the first plane. [00:04:24] But how do you effectuate that within the law? I don't nobody's probably written a law for how to get someone back from a dungeon, because we've never sent someone to a foreign dungeon before, at least not legally so. But overall, I don't want you to worry about that too much. [00:04:41] This is the Supreme Court saying no, you must bring him back. And now the second great part of the ruling is no dissent. So they're already bringing back the district court. And, you know, making the district court try to figure out [00:04:56] how in the world to effectuate this. So maybe that's their concession to the Clarence Thomas's and the alito's, etc. Of the world, but no dissent at all saying no, that he must be brought back, that they are requiring the government to do that. [00:05:11] So when this very, very conservative Supreme Court says nine to nothing. No, you can't just send innocent people to a, you know, a prison in a different country. That's that's the court's holding and actually checking Donald Trump [00:05:28] and and bringing him back to the US Constitution, the US rules. And if you don't know this, the absurd parts of the case, do you know, the only evidence that they presented against this guy was that he was wearing a bulls hat and bulls hoodie, as in Chicago Bulls. [00:05:44] And they thought that was some sort of gang sign. So half of Chicago. Watch out. Okay. This is totally crazy. I mean, what they did to this guy and what they're doing overall is just nuts. And and by and and the last part of how nuts it is, [00:06:01] is in court at the district court level. They were arguing. Yeah. No. We're wrong. We got the wrong guy. We admit that. And no, we don't want to bring him back. What do you mean you don't want to bring him back? That's. I mean, Ben, that's just the craziest thing I've ever heard. 100%. [00:06:17] And on that standard, by the way, it's about time we kick Dennis Rodman out of this country because he wears Bulls paraphernalia and doesn't look like he's from here. And by from here, I mean this planet. But it's 100% the design of the Trump administration, because you wonder why it's these unforced errors, why they do these things [00:06:34] that could easily be corrected. It's because they very specifically don't want to do that. If they indeed only wanted to remove people who were here under actual violation of our law, who were actually criminals, then you would be [00:06:50] very eager to immediately apologize. You wouldn't make the mistake, probably in the first place. But if you did, you'd be very eager to apologize and correct the record and say, that is the kind of thing we don't tolerate. But it's the exact reason that whether or not Elon Musk's Nazi [00:07:06] salute was intentional or not, it's the exact reason why he didn't overtly and immediately apologize for the interpretation of it being that, and why Trump didn't say anything, apologizing for it and saying his administration won't ever stand for something like that. [00:07:21] Not because they are necessarily explicitly Nazis, or because they explicitly want to be associated with that ideology. But what they do want is the empowerment of anybody who can join their ranks, of people who can stand up and create rebellions, [00:07:37] create attempted coups in the future, can create any sort of action they want against the normal order and the normal values of the American government and the American society. They have all of these rogue people that are white supremacists, generally speaking, and love to these little winks, these little dog whistles that say, [00:07:55] we're actually on your side. Look, we're not asking for the American guy back because he's not descended from here. We're not asking. We're not apologizing for a Nazi salute because, you know, we know you guys think this is, empowering of white supremacy. [00:08:10] And we're not saying no, it's not not no on that. - And that's really, really scary. - Yeah. So last quick thing on this is that, look, if you're in the right wing and you got triggered by some of the words that Ben just used, well, look, Democrats said that Trump would be authoritarian. [00:08:26] And I said that, and, you know, I got no love for the establishment, etc. But I voted against Trump because I was worried he was going to be authoritarian. Does it get any more authoritarian than we sent an innocent man to one of the worst prisons in the world, in a different country? [00:08:43] And we know we're wrong. We know he's innocent and we don't want to bring him back. What is that? That's nuts. If you're a right wing and you say, yeah, that's right, the Trump administration is right to go into court and argue. [00:08:59] When you send an innocent man to get tortured in a dungeon, you shouldn't get him out. Are you really proud of that? I hope not. I hope not, but, Well, there are some conservatives who apparently are horrified by it. And luckily they were on the Supreme Court, so nine to nothing. [00:09:16] You must bring him back. It's a good day in America. So we'll take it every time you ring the bell below. An angel gets his wings. Totally not true. But it does keep you updated on our live shows.