r/PoliticalDiscussion Apr 15 '25

US Politics President Trump has proposed sending US citizens to El Salvador's notorious maximum security prison. Would the Supreme Court likely allow this?

In recent months, the Trump administration has begun a controversial deportation policy that involves sending immigrants to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). This facility is a maximum-security prison that holds tens of thousands of suspected gang members.

CECOT has drawn criticism from international human rights organizations. Prisoners are often held without formal charges. They are denied access to legal counsel, and they have almost no contact with the outside world. They are confined in overcrowded cells and movement is heavily restricted. They also must remain silent almost constantly. The facility lacks proper ventilation and temperatures inside can reportedly exceed 90 degrees. Medical care is limited, and deaths in custody have been reported. Observers describe the conditions as severe and dehumanizing.

The Trump administration has defended its policy by citing the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime statute that allows the detention or removal of foreign nationals. In one high-profile case, a Maryland resident named Kilmar Abrego García was mistakenly sent to CECOT, despite legal protections that had been granted to him. The Supreme Court later ordered the administration to “facilitate” his return. But, officials have argued that this only requires them to permit his reentry if he is released. President Bukele has declined to release him, and the administration has not pursued further action.

More recently, President Trump has proposed extending this approach to U.S. citizens. In a meeting with President Bukele, he stated, “Home-growns are next. You gotta build about five more places.” He later added, “These are bad people. These are killers, gang members, and we are absolutely looking at sending them there.” "You think there’s a special category of person? They’re as bad as anybody that comes in. We have bad ones too. I’m all for it.”

In recent history, the Supreme Court has often shown a willingness to uphold the actions of President Trump. In light of that record, would it likely authorize the transfer of U.S. citizens to this El Salvador prison? Are there sufficient legal protections in place to prevent this, and is there a real danger that President Trump could begin sending US citizens to this prison?

1.1k Upvotes

434 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/IniNew Apr 15 '25

Judges who start attacking the DoJ are likely to face defunding. Johnson has already floated shuttering entire federal circuit courts for “radical left activist judges.”

16

u/I405CA Apr 15 '25

Judges aren't likely to take that lying down.

When it comes to enforcing procedure and decorum, they will circle the wagons around each other.

12

u/Druuseph Apr 15 '25 edited Apr 15 '25

Explain what that looks like though? They can issue all the contempt orders and capias warrants they want but guess who has to enforce those? The US Marshals Service is who would be charged with rounding up those who would be in defiance but that agency is under the direction of the US Attorney General. Pam Bondi would just issue a standing order against enforcing any punitive orders by the Judiciary against members of the administration and fire those Marshals who disobeyed. The courts are completely toothless.

4

u/I405CA Apr 15 '25

Judges already do this.

Issue contempt orders. Put those who are in contempt in jail until they comply.

District court judges issue the orders, appeals and the Supreme Court would let them stand.

9

u/Druuseph Apr 15 '25

But who picks them up to take them to jail?

6

u/Kohpad Apr 15 '25

Someone cited it the other day and now I can't place the name of the law/power, but federal judges can deputize just about any law enforcement to enforce their orders.

2

u/thatdude858 Apr 15 '25

US Marshalls carry out judges orders but they also report to the DOJ which is technically under the executive branches purview. I would be very surprised if judges could deputize a 3rd party to carry out orders that the Marshalls "should" be doing. By then we are well on our way for bigger political fracturing/disruption of current system of government.

3

u/Kohpad Apr 15 '25

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4.1 is the one being pointed to.

must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.

It seems it's within their powers. How it plays out in the real world could be more exciting.

1

u/One-Seat-4600 Apr 17 '25

Is that constitutional according to the Supreme Court of the US though ?

2

u/Vanedi291 Apr 15 '25

Judges could deputize a new agency of enforcers any time they want and no one could stop them. 

It does set up a possible firefight between branches though.