Editorial: A win for the rule of law — Abrego Garcia return is first step in accountability for Trump deportations
Finally obeying the Supreme Court's ruling 9-0 to return to the U.S. Kilmar Abrego García, the Maryland man with legal protections who was illegally sent to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador, the Trump administration has followed the law and brought him back. That is good.
But this being the Trump administration, Abrego García is now suddenly facing multiple federal criminal charges surrounding the allegation that he once ferried people in the country illegally to different states.
Whether the indictment is solid or not, Abrego García will now have competent legal defense and will be before independent judges. He is entitled to all protections that are due under the Constitution, which the disappearance of him to El Salvador abrogated.
There are no new facts in this case, only what was substantially already known to investigators and prosecutors. There could be myriad reasons why federal law enforcement did not take any action beforehand, ranging from lack of evidence to simple resource allocation.
But what is certain is that only reason why they're pursuing it now: to send the signal that the Trump government won't tolerate questioning its enforcement efforts, and that if you become enough of a public thorn in their side — even if it is the result of popular outrage you don't have any hand in — they'll go after you.
As predictable as a ploy, as this is, it's at least a good thing that he will not remain in the Salvadoran prison system; at this point, he's the only publicly-known person to ever leave CECOT alive. In the United States, he'll have access to the still-active protections of our legal system and can actually fight acknowledged charges with his attorneys.
To state the obvious, this is a pretty clear indication that the administration always could get the Salvadorans to return custody. The insistence of Attorney General Pam Bondi and others that they had no ability to correct their acknowledged error was always a lie, and there should be consequences for that lie. Maryland Federal Judge Paula Xinis, who issued the original order for his return, has already set the groundwork to hold federal officials in contempt, and she should continue to explore that avenue even though he's now been brought back.
The fact of Abrego Garcia's return does not mean that everything is above board with regards to the administration's use of CECOT or Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, under which most of the other detainees were sent. This was merely the case where the administration had most individually and egregiously violated the law, but, as D.C. Federal Judge James Boasberg recently ruled, every single removal under that policy — which to remind readers is based on the absurd conceit that the United States is in something akin to war against Venezuela — was unlawful.
This isn't over until the government returns every person removed under the AEA and stops contracting with a foreign government to indefinitely imprison people on no charge, a policy for which it has never laid out any legal basis. The public outrage that was struck by Abrego Garcia's detention and removal should extend to all others who remain held there without charge, and to all of the people the administration continues to detain every day just for trying to follow the law.
_____
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNN
14 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court backs families fighting school district over disability discrimination
The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with a Minnesota family that has been battling their local school district over the education of their daughter in a decision that could make it easier for other parents of disabled children to seek damages from schools under federal disability laws. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected a lower court ruling that had set a high legal bar to bring those claims, essentially shielding school districts from certain suits involving disability discrimination. The teenager at the center of the case, identified in court papers as Ava, has a rare form of epilepsy that made it impossible for her to attend school in the morning. Her parents requested that the district accommodate her disability with evening instruction, but school officials initially declined to do so. The parents filed a successful complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which resulted in a decision requiring the school to offer evening parents then sued the district for damages under the Americans with Disability Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. That latter law is what allows parents and schools to develop '504 plans' to accommodate students with disabilities. A federal district court ruled with the schools, holding that the family had not demonstrated that school administrators operated with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment,' a higher legal standard than the 'deliberate indifference' threshold that courts apply in other disability discrimination contests. The 8th US Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision and the parents appealed to the Supreme Court in September. In its decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the same standard that applies in other disability contexts should also apply in schools. It doesn't mean that the families will necessarily win their cases, but it will make it easier for them to bring their claims. 'That our decision is narrow does not diminish its import' for the family involved in the litigation 'and 'a great many children with disabilities and their parents,'' Roberts wrote. 'Together they face daunting challenges on a daily basis,' Roberts added. 'We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs to establish discrimination under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.' Five federal appeals courts have required parents to meet the higher standard to proceed with litigation and two others apply the lower standard. Public school districts, worried about limited resources, had argued at the Supreme Court that the way to handle the case was not to lower the standard for families like the one involved but rather to raise it for everyone else. But the court dismissed that argument as arriving too late in the litigation. The court's 'resolution of these issues could have significant ramifications for both disability law and discrimination law more generally,' Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. 'That these issues are consequential is all the more reason to wait for a case in which they are squarely before us and we have the benefit of adversarial briefing.' Two years ago, the Supreme Court sided unanimously with a student who is deaf and also sought to sue his school for damages. That case dealt with whether students could pursue those claims for damages before they exhaust administrative processes required under another law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.


Bloomberg
15 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Texas Deploys 5,000 National Guard Soldiers Ahead of Protests
Texas Governor Greg Abbott is deploying 5,000 National Guard soldiers and 2,000 state troopers to assist local law enforcement during planned protests this weekend. Any demonstrators engaging in violence or damaging property will be arrested, Abbott warned in a statement Thursday.


Fox News
16 minutes ago
- Fox News
Diddy allegedly wanted one last drug-fueled night after rehab push: testimony
Sean "Diddy" Combs' ex-girlfriend, testifying under the pseudonym Jane, told jurors Wednesday that the rapper wanted one more "sobriety party" before he pursued rehab. Jane claimed there were three entertainers at the party, and she allegedly did not take any drugs. She testified that while she agreed to the party, she also resented Diddy "for knowing how much I loved him and knowing how I couldn't say no to him." Under direct examination last week, the government asked Jane if she and Diddy experienced "hotel nights" without drugs. Jane explained that the former couple attempted the nights a handful of times, and it was at Diddy's request in October 2023 that they tried a "sobriety party." "Around this time I just really wanted my partner to get sober," Jane testified. "I just really cared so much about Sean's health, and I could see that he just, like, was excessively partying on top of just so many pills that he takes daily for I don't know what. And I just really wanted him to get clean and just get better." She continued, "And he said, okay, I'm going to do like 30 days without anything, and I'll be sober. But let's just have, like, one more, one more sobriety party. Just one, like, sobriety party." When asked what drugs Diddy used during the "sobriety party," Jane replied, "I believe ecstasy. And cocaine. I don't know." She also alleged the party lasted "too long," claiming it was "close to 12 to 18 hours." Diddy's ex testified Tuesday that she broached the subject of rehab for the "I Need A Girl" rapper after allegedly witnessing him "overdoing the partying." She claimed he would offer her ecstasy before engaging in role play and that Diddy liked to use the words "voyeurism" and "escapism" to describe his fantasies of watching her participate in sexual encounters with male escorts. WATCH: DIDDY'S EX-GIRLFRIEND PREPS FOR CROSS EXAMINATION AFTER 'GRAPHIC, DAYS-LONG' TESTIMONY Jane also claimed the rapper made her delete social media posts showing him while allegedly forcing her to participate in "hotel nights." The jury was shown a photo of Diddy at the popular sushi spot, Nobu, before a "hotel night." Jane confirmed she and the "Gotta Move On" rapper went to dinner before with two male escorts, Paul and Don. Jane testified during cross-examination that Combs made her delete a social media post from the dinner. The jury was then shown text messages between Jane and Diddy dated March 2, 2022. Jane was coordinating coming to Miami before the Nobu dinner. Diddy's text read, "Everyone can post…" Jane responded, telling Diddy to have another woman delete a post. According to Jane, this was a fight that occurred after a "hotel night" because Jane saw the rapper's other girlfriend, Gina, post a picture wearing a "love necklace." Jane claimed she had a matching "love bracelet." Jane explained that those nights were so "emotionally excruciating, so to see these things was really hurtful." Jane testified she was upset that Gina could post on social media, but she could not. Jane's cross-examination began Tuesday by Diddy's criminal defense lawyer, Teny Geragos. She questioned Jane about her relationship with the rapper and her participation in the allegedly forced "hotel nights." Jane testified Diddy was upfront with her about dating multiple women at the start of their relationship in 2021. She explained the rapper was "polyamorous" and she was okay with that at the time. She testified at first she didn't mind because she was just getting to know Diddy. Diddy paid Jane's rent through their "love contract," according to her testimony. The ex-girlfriend told the prosecution that she felt obligated to perform at "hotel nights" for the rapper because he had threatened to stop paying for her home. For "hotel nights," Jane claimed she was expected to dress in lingerie and have sex with other men in front of the rapper. The cross-examination became heated when Geragos began questioning Jane about the money he spent on her and gifts she received from the rapper. Texts to Diddy from Jane about the "Last Night" rapper buying purses for another woman were brought up in court. Geragos commented that Jane also received a bag of her own. "No, I only got trauma … after three-and-a-half years, I really don't think I garnered anything," Jane told the court. Geragos pressed, "How much do Bottega bags cost?" to which Jane replied, "How much does my body cost?" before asking the court for a break from testimony. When court resumed, Jane apologized to Geragos. Geragos also brought up Diddy's alleged drug use. Jane testified that when she first met the raper, she knew he consumed drugs. However, she claimed she didn't know how much. During a trip early on in their relationship, Jane claimed it became apparent the rapper wasn't taking care of himself after she noticed his eyes and teeth. The music mogul allegedly appeared jaundiced, his gums were gray, and his hands were shaky from over-consuming alcohol. Jane said she spoke to him about rehab and suggested a trip to Thailand. "What the h---, you think I need rehab?" Jane claimed Diddy said at the time. Before cross-examination began Tuesday, Judge Arun Subramanian denied Diddy's second request for a mistrial. Diddy's legal team had argued that the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony to the court in a letter filed June 7 and obtained by Fox News Digital. WATCH: WITNESS DETAILS HOW DIDDY 'DANGLED' HER OVER A BALCONY IN EXPLOSIVE NEW TESTIMONY The defense pointed to testimony from Bryana "Bana" Bongolan, who claimed Diddy dangled her off a 17th floor balcony in September 2016. Portions of her testimony were questioned after she couldn't remember details of the alleged incident, including what drugs she was on at the time. However, the federal judge ruled there was no interference. Judge Subramanian noted the defense was able to, and did, attack Bongolan's testimony to undermine her credibility. According to the judge, there was no prejudice to an exhibit that had helped the defense's case.