Appeals court won’t lift order to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s return in blistering opinion | ‘The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order’

Wilkinson’s (Reagan-appointed judge) opinion besides calling out Trump for the complete lawlessness of deporting him, takes like a million potshots against other bullshit he’s done. It is essential resist lib reading:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400/gov.uscourts.ca4.178400.8.0.pdf

> The government is obviously frustrated and displeased with the rulings of the court.
Let one thing be clear. Court rulings are not above criticism. Criticism keeps us on our toes
and helps us do a better job. See Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1, 24 (1958) (Frankfurter, J.,
concurring) (“Criticism need not be stilled. Active obstruction or defiance is barred.”).

…

> If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due
process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will
not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?∗ And
what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary
powers upon its political enemies?

> *See, e.g., Michelle Stoddart, ‘Homegrowns are Next’: Trump Doubles Down on
Sending American ‘Criminals’ to Foreign Prisons, ABC NEWS (Apr. 14, 2025, 6:04 PM);
David Rutz, Trump Open to Sending Violent American Criminals to El Salvador Prisons,
FOX NEWS (Apr. 15, 2025, 11:01 AM EDT)

…

> The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort at mutual
respect. The respect that courts must accord the Executive must be reciprocated by the
Executive’s respect for the courts. Too often today this has not been the case, as calls for
impeachment of judges for decisions the Executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard
court orders sadly illustrate.

…

> Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a
conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The
Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent
of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from
a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive
may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragic
gap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

And then signing off with some copium:

> We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe
our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American
ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the
best that is within us while there is still time.