They got a conservative judge in a conservative circuit, and still Trump got crushed when Fourth Circuit Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, joined by  Judges Robert King and Stephanie Thacker, unanimously denied the motion for an emergency stay of Judge Paula Xinis’ contempt hearing.

It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter. But in this case, it is not hard at all. 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. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done.

This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The Trump administration’s position, as has been made overwhelmingly clear, is twofold. First, that it’s out of their hands as Abrego Garcia is in the custody of El Salvador so there is neither anything they can do about it, nor can a district judge order a president to enter into foreign negotiations with Bukele. This stance was nonsensical. El Salvador holds Abrego Garcia pursuant to an agreement with the United States, and for which the US is paying $6 million, making Bukele no different than a private prison hired to hold prisoners. Moreover, Trump did nothing, absolutely nothing, to seek Abrego Garcia’s return.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government “to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.”

Despite the rhetorical contortions of the administration, it is incomprehensible that anyone could believe that “facilitate” meant “do nothing,” even if the Trump administration’s immigration muse, Stephen Miller, desperately wants to believe Trump won at the Supreme Court.

The second tact is even more nefarious, as the administration has pulled out all the stops to vilify Abrego Garcia so as to convince people that no matter how bad it might be that the administration defied the court, he was such a bad dude that no one should care.

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. See 8 C.F.R. § 208.24(f) (requiring that the government prove “by a preponderance of evidence” that the alien is no longer entitled to a withholding of removal). Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongly or “mistakenly” deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong, right?

There is a huge difference between an immigration judge deciding that someone is removable and a conviction in an Article III court that determines whether someone is a criminal. Abrego Garcia has never been tried nor convicted for any conduct that proves he’s either a terrorist or a member of MS-13. The government claims otherwise, and as Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has repeatedly asserted, who are you going to believe, the brave men of law enforcement or this illegal alien gangbanger?

As complex as law can be at times, this time there is nothing complicated about it. No matter how hard the administration tries to smear Abrego Garcia, it does not change a law-abiding administration’s duty to comply with the orders of the courts.

“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prisons that the withholding order forbids and, further, to do so in disregard of a court order that the government not so subtly spurns. “Facilitation” does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would “facilitate” foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood.

As my old buddy, Marc Randazza, says, murum ares attigit, the ram has hit the wall. Judge Wilkinson has sought to inoffensively tell Trump that he’s run out of options to try to lie and weasel his way around the courts. His choice is to either comply or refuse, and pop the pimple of the constitutional crisis he’s created.

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.

For years, the progressive left has argued that the ends justify the means, justifying the attainment of their woke goals. This is no different. If the ends justify the means, there is no longer a viable Constitution of three co-equal branches with their checks and balances. This isn’t really a case about a guy named Abrego Garcia, though it’s good to know he’s still alive and healthy, but a case about whether the only thing Trump will actively facilitate is the death of the Constitution.