OPINION:
Following the law shouldn’t be a one-way street. Liberal pundits and politicians brand President Trump an “authoritarian” for his supposed disobedience to judicial rulings. Except, the president’s men have thus far scrupulously complied with the text of every federal court command, no matter how daft.
A lower-level judge has devised a strategy to put the administration in the novel position of either accepting its recent Supreme Court win or obeying his decree that says the opposite. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, an appointee of President Biden, has been setting this trap for months.
From his Boston courtroom, Judge Murphy fired off a series of demands designed to protect foreigners who sneaked into the United States to commit additional misdeeds. Each received “due process” in the form of an immigration attorney from one of the many radical nongovernmental organizations that facilitate open borders.
Once advised, these noncitizens developed a sudden fear of returning home. White House officials caught on to the game and negotiated with places such as South Sudan and Djibouti to take noncitizens who couldn’t be returned to El Salvador, Guatemala or Mexico.
Judge Murphy countered this move by insisting that lawbreakers be given enough notice of such travel plans that they could contract a crippling phobia of the revised destination. In an April ruling, his honor proclaimed that eight noncitizens accused or convicted of offenses, including arson, armed robbery, rape and murder, could not be delivered to a third country.
A Supreme Court majority found that his ruling went too far, so they stayed the proceedings in Judge Murphy’s courtroom on Monday. This inferior jurist, who has had the job only since December, decided he wouldn’t let a rebuke get in his way. He declared that his order “remains in full force and effect, notwithstanding today’s stay of the Preliminary Injunction.”
Although Judge Murphy cited Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent as justification, a statement from the losing side of the bench isn’t a permission slip. Justice Department officials sprinted to the high court seeking a remedy for the “lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the Executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals.”
As this drama played out Tuesday, The New York Times published a former Justice Department insider’s assertion that Emil Bove III, currently Mr. Trump’s nominee for an opening on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, had been directing Justice Department staff to defy court edicts he didn’t like.
The Gray Lady based its hit-and-run article on the word of the government lawyer who was fired after telling a judge that illegal alien and suspected human trafficker Kilmar Abrego Garcia was “wrongly” deported. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche suggested that the insubordinate attorney who sabotaged the “Maryland Man” case may not be an objective observer of events.
“I was at the meeting described in the article and at no time did anyone suggest a court order should not be followed,” Mr. Blanche wrote on X.
The difference between the administration and these activists is that Justice Department officials have a track record of treating dubious court decisions with far more respect than they deserve. One wonders how long that can continue as district judges push beyond the boundaries of their authority.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has a duty to bring order to his branch of government. The longer he waits to act, the more his institution is diminished.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.