The article critiques the Supreme Court's seemingly disparate treatment of presidential authority in foreign affairs, contrasting its handling of cases involving Donald Trump and Joe Biden. It argues that the court showed excessive deference to Trump's actions while exhibiting less concern regarding Biden's.
The central case involves Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father wrongly deported to El Salvador. The Supreme Court's ruling, while ordering the Trump administration to "facilitate" his return, avoided explicitly instructing them to "effectuate" it, a distinction Trump seized upon to avoid action. The court's concern for potentially interfering with diplomatic negotiations under Trump is highlighted.
The article contrasts this with the Supreme Court's handling of a case involving Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk's extensive intervention in the Biden administration's immigration policy. Kacsmaryk effectively controlled border policy for 10 months, with the Supreme Court showing minimal concern about the intrusion into Biden's foreign affairs authority. This lack of action is juxtaposed with the court's scrutiny of the judge's phrasing in the Abrego Garcia case.
The author argues that the Supreme Court applies different standards to Biden and Trump, consistently tying Biden's hands while freeing Trump's. This double standard, the article contends, ultimately results in harm to immigrants. The court's inaction in one case and its over-scrutiny in another is viewed as inconsistent and politically motivated.