It’s Good Friday, I’m off work, and one story in the news this week has really stuck out to me. It ties directly back to something we talked about last week: the slow erosion of checks and balances. Back then, the courts still looked like the last real guardrail. Well—wouldn’t you know it—this week’s story might put that to the test. And while it’s still playing out, it’s worth highlighting what’s already happened and why it matters.
In a recent case, a federal judge issued a clear order: don’t deport the individual until their legal case is resolved. The administration did it anyway, later calling it an “administrative error.”
The Supreme Court stepped in with a unanimous ruling: the government must “facilitate” the person’s return. The bar wasn’t high—just make a good-faith effort. So far, they haven’t even tried. Instead, they claim their duty ends with lifting domestic legal barriers, not actively helping to bring the person back. The lower court is now considering whether to hold the executive branch in contempt.
This isn’t a simple mix-up. It’s the executive branch ignoring both a federal court and the Supreme Court. That’s not just wrong—it’s dangerous.
Because this isn’t about immigration. It’s about whether the presidency is still constrained by law. If the courts can be ignored in one case, what’s to stop it from happening again?
If this were happening under a president you didn’t support, would you still be okay with it? If not, then the principle—not the person—should matter.
This wasn’t a partisan ruling. All nine justices, including the most conservative on the bench, agreed. When every justice speaks with one voice and the White House still shrugs it off, that’s scary. That’s power without accountability.
The legal fight isn’t over. It’s likely headed back to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the administration complies before this can escalate further.
Because once any president decides the courts can be ignored, the damage doesn’t stay limited to a single case. That mindset spreads—to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, due process, citizenship rights, and yes, even the right to bear arms.
The Founders didn’t build a government where one person decides what laws apply. The whole point of a republic is that no one—not even a president—is above the law.
Thoughts?
