Last week, the Supreme Court unanimously ordered the federal government to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia to the U.S. from his deportation to an El Salvador torture prison. The decision was clear: the deportation was illegal, and the government was required to undo it.
Yet, Attorney General Pam Bondi is refusing to comply. She has made no efforts to return Mr. Abrego Garcia, despite a binding court order. "He is not coming back to our country," according to Bondi.
That is not how the rule of law works.
Here's a quick refresher for the non-lawyers:
1. Court orders are not suggestions. They are binding commands.
2. If you disagree with a lower court's order, you appeal it.
3. Once the Supreme Court rules, that's the end of the line. There is no "we're going to ignore it."
In our system, the executive branch (via the U.S. Marshal Service, which reports to the AG) is supposed to enforce those orders if they aren't followed.
But what if it won’t?
Here's the terrifying truth. The courts have no enforcement wing, no army. They rely entirely on the executive branch to carry out their decisions. If the Department of Justice chooses not to act, the judiciary is effectively powerless. That's not a partisan statement. It's a constitutional crisis.
If we want to live in a country governed by laws and not by people, we can't let any administration—Republican or Democrat—decide which Supreme Court decisions it feels like following.
If the DOJ can shrug off this Supreme Court order today, what stops it from ignoring a voting rights ruling tomorrow? Or a free speech decision next year?
This isn't about Kilmar Abrego Garcia anymore—although, for the record, what happened to him is an abysmal human rights violation. It's about whether we still believe in the system of checks and balances that has defined American democracy for nearly 250 years.
Right now, that system is on life support.
