This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Political rhetoric over the past few years has been littered with warnings about a "constitutional crisis."
That's been one of the Democrats' go-to talking points to attack President Donald Trump.
After all, they accused him of planning to set himself up as a dictator, to order the jailing of his political opponents, and even to use the military for his own political purposes.
To a much lesser degree, there have been reports of a "constitutional crisis" that has come about since he took office because of a long list of federal district judges, those in black robes at the entry level for the federal court system, taking over various responsibilities of the executive branch, including foreign policy, the border security and such.
But now an analysis at the Federalist pinpoints the actual trigger behind a "constitutional crisis": The Supreme Court.
For its refusal to rein in those judges, deliver a mandate that they are not to interfere with the president's constitutional rights, duties, and responsibilities.
The analysis is by Margot Cleveland, a lawyer and a graduate of the Notre Dame Law School, where she earned the Hoynes Prize—the law school's highest honor. She also has served for nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk for a federal appellate judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. She also is of counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
She explains, "The Supreme Court has interceded six times in less than three months to rein in federal judges who improperly exceeded their Article III authority and infringed on the Article II authority of President Donald Trump. Yet the high court continues to issue mealy-mouthed opinions which serve only to exacerbate the ongoing battle between the Executive and Judicial branches of government."
The problem is about to get worse, she explained, as, "Now there is a constitutional crisis primed to explode this week in a federal court in Maryland over the removal of an El Salvadoran — courtesy of the justices' latest baby-splitting foray on Thursday."
The fight is over an order from Paula Xinis, who told the Trump administration to "facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025."
Garcia was deported to his native El Salvador after a court ruled he could not be deported to that country. Mitigating that mistake was the fact that the court order also concluded Garcia, as an alien illegally present in the United States, was subject to removal under federal law — just not to El Salvador.
Garcia's demands for asylum and other relief were rejected.
So followed the order from Xinis.
While the process found Garcia was "wrongly" sent to El Salvador, the Trump administration explained simply that Xinis didn't have the authority to intervene in international relations and order Trump to "facilitate and effectuate" the return of Garcia.
Garcia is a member of MS-13, a designated terrorist organization.
The Supreme Court granted a brief stay, then ordered the judge to clarify the order, specifically the demand to "effectuate" Garcia's return because that might "exceed the district court's authority."
Xinis then changed the order to have the administration "facilitate" Barcia's return, and further to file daily reports on where he is, and the administration responded with, "Foreign affairs cannot operate on judicial timelines, in part because it involves sensitive country-specific considerations wholly inappropriate for judicial review."
Garcia's lawyers then demanded the U.S. send someone to accompany him back to the United States on a special flight the government would arrange, and provide all documentation for him to enter the U.S.
The Supreme Court, the analysis confirmed, is facing the facts presented by the Trump administration that, "The federal courts have no authority to direct the Executive Branch to conduct foreign relations in a particular way, or engage with a foreign sovereign in a given manner."
That is, the administration said, "the 'exclusive power of the President as the sole organ of the federal government in the field of international relations.'"
"The justices should have foreseen this standoff and defused the situation last week by clearly defining the limits of the lower court's authority. The Supreme Court's continuing failure to do so is wreaking havoc on the reputation of the courts — and our constitutional order," said the analysis.
