Jack Goldsmith

He was determined to be removable, but not to El Salvador because he would be, the court determined, subject to persecution there. So this was the one place... He was not supposed to be sent. And they sent him there. They didn't explain it, but they said it was a quote unquote administrative mistake. They've acknowledged that it was a mistake and he should not have been sent there.

He was determined to be removable, but not to El Salvador because he would be, the court determined, subject to persecution there. So this was the one place... He was not supposed to be sent. And they sent him there. They didn't explain it, but they said it was a quote unquote administrative mistake. They've acknowledged that it was a mistake and he should not have been sent there.

So he's there now. And the question is what to do about it. What can, if anything, the courts do about it? Right.

So he's there now. And the question is what to do about it. What can, if anything, the courts do about it? Right.

So I'll try to be brief and tell me if I get too technical. But basically, the Supreme Court in an emergency order – Issues what was an ambiguous opinion at the time and has grown more ambiguous as we read it more and see what's happened since. It basically said that the order properly requires the government to facilitate Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. That sounds good for him.

So I'll try to be brief and tell me if I get too technical. But basically, the Supreme Court in an emergency order – Issues what was an ambiguous opinion at the time and has grown more ambiguous as we read it more and see what's happened since. It basically said that the order properly requires the government to facilitate Garcia's release from custody in El Salvador. That sounds good for him.

But it also said that the district court may have overstepped its mandate by saying that the government had to effectuate the release. And it also said that the district court had to pay the government, the president, deference in foreign affairs. They took a maximal, as they have in every other context, a maximal interpretation of the deference foreign courts have to give them.

But it also said that the district court may have overstepped its mandate by saying that the government had to effectuate the release. And it also said that the district court had to pay the government, the president, deference in foreign affairs. They took a maximal, as they have in every other context, a maximal interpretation of the deference foreign courts have to give them.

And they've been exerting claims of foreign policy exclusive power. Anywhere there's a foreign policy issue in the case, they've been saying the courts can't deal with it. And it's an extravagantly broad position.

And they've been exerting claims of foreign policy exclusive power. Anywhere there's a foreign policy issue in the case, they've been saying the courts can't deal with it. And it's an extravagantly broad position.

I would say it's an implausible argument. Yes. So this goes back to the district court. And basically, I see the court as trying to nudge both sides to do the right thing. The right thing is obviously that the district court cannot tell the president that he has to negotiate with a foreign sovereign and to ensure that this person is brought back to U.S.

I would say it's an implausible argument. Yes. So this goes back to the district court. And basically, I see the court as trying to nudge both sides to do the right thing. The right thing is obviously that the district court cannot tell the president that he has to negotiate with a foreign sovereign and to ensure that this person is brought back to U.S.

custody and brought back to the United States. That's, as I see it, one side of what they're thinking. On the other hand, the president made a mistake and should and may have a duty to do everything he can to bring this person back. I read this ambiguous decision as trying to get both sides to cool down and reach some accommodation. And unfortunately, that is not what happened on Remand.

custody and brought back to the United States. That's, as I see it, one side of what they're thinking. On the other hand, the president made a mistake and should and may have a duty to do everything he can to bring this person back. I read this ambiguous decision as trying to get both sides to cool down and reach some accommodation. And unfortunately, that is not what happened on Remand.

On Remand, the district court, in my judgment, acted hastily, did not give deference to the government. It required it to immediately start giving information. The government responded obnoxiously and basically saying, we're not going to play ball here. They gave a little information. They said he was alive.

On Remand, the district court, in my judgment, acted hastily, did not give deference to the government. It required it to immediately start giving information. The government responded obnoxiously and basically saying, we're not going to play ball here. They gave a little information. They said he was alive.

And the government gave an extremely narrow interpretation of what the Supreme Court's order meant. So both the district court read the opinion one-sidedly and then the government read it one-sidedly. And now we're in a worse position.

And the government gave an extremely narrow interpretation of what the Supreme Court's order meant. So both the district court read the opinion one-sidedly and then the government read it one-sidedly. And now we're in a worse position.

And this is part of their PR campaign.

And this is part of their PR campaign.