As of April 12, according to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration must file a daily declaration as to the location of one Kilmar Abrego Garcia, along with details of what steps have been, and are being, taken to “facilitate his immediate return to the United States.”

Garcia’s case is an open and shut matter.  The administration freely and openly admits that the Maryland resident’s deportation to El Salvador was illegal and “mistaken.” The court has therefore ruled that he must be returned.

But that doesn’t mean he will be.

Trump and El Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele publicly smirked their way through an April 14 meeting at the White House, denying that Trump could or would demand Garcia’s return, or that Bukele would comply if he received such a demand.

On April 13, the US Department of Justice filed a retort to the court’s ruling, claiming that “exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations” supersedes that ruling.

That language comes from the court’s ruling in a 1936 case, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., and feels rather odd given Trump’s past disdain for the notion that SCOTUS precedent shouldn’t be overturned lightly.

Let’s talk about where that language DOESN’T come from: The US Constitution.

According to that document, the president has strictly limited powers of any kind,  especially over foreign policy.

He can only enter the United States into treaties with the approval of 2/3 of the Senate.

He’s only commander-in-chief of the armed forces when they’re called into the “actual service of the United States” via congressional declaration of war.

He doesn’t get to levy taxes, on Americans or anyone else. That power belongs to Congress.

Neither he nor Congress have any constitutionally enumerated power to regulate immigration.

As for states of “emergency,” the word appears nowhere in the Constitution which includes no magic presidential power to usurp any of the aforementioned powers by declaring one.

Presidents love to point out that they’re “chief executives,” but the emphasis always seems to be on “chief.”

What is an executive? One who executes.

What does the president execute? The law, as passed by Congress.

The president, according to the Constitution, is “chief of doing whatever Congress says to do” on everything, foreign policy included.

The Supreme Court serves as referee when arguments arise as to the constitutionality of Congress’s instructions or the president’s execution of those instructions.

Congressional abdication of responsibility and judicial abdication of authority have, over time, given us an “imperial presidency” of which Donald Trump is just the current instance.

Which brings me back to that Lysander Spooner quote I share with you several times a year:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

We should stop pretending it DOES exist in any meaningful way — and act accordingly.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY