A former federal prosecutor gushed over a judge's rebuke of the Trump administration, calling it a "beautiful exercise in writing" and declaring, "put that on a monument."
Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit issued a strongly worded, unanimous opinion earlier Thursday rejecting the Trump administration’s request to pause a lower court order in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. The appeals court’s decision allowed the district court judge to continue trying to require the administration to facilitate Garcia’s return and review what steps have been taken to comply with previous orders.
Wilkinson rebuked the administration for claiming it could deport people without due process and then claim nothing could be done once they were out of U.S. custody. He called this argument “shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear."
ALSO READ: 'Dictatorship, not a town hall': Families 'distraught' as MTG disruptors tased and jailed
“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?”
The prose caught the attention of Elie Honig, a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York, who called the language "pointed" at times — "rightly so," Honig noted — while using "gentler language" elsewhere, such as when he said, "We prevail upon our good colleagues in the executive branch to do the right thing here."
Wilkinson appeared to also be writing for the Supreme Court, whom Honig said has "real sway" with the conservative justices.
Honig then lauded the judge for writing: "Now the branches come close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. 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 in law. And time will sign its epitaph. Law, in time, will sign its epitaph."
"Put that on a monument," Honig declared. "I mean, what a remarkable statement."
Honig called the judge's language a "powerful" statement — that in the short term, the executive branch will "do what it will do," and there's "not a whole heck of a lot we—the courts—can do about it."
"We rely on the power of words, the power of suasion. But ultimately, the courts and the law will rule. When history looks back at this, it will not look fondly on you, executive branch, if you continue to defy the law," Honig said, interpreting the ruling.
Honig wasn't don there.
"By the way, this is a beautiful exercise in writing. I mean, it's got the highfalutin language, but it's also very clear. I mean, at one point, he says both countries here are saying there's nothing they can do. How can that be? You made an error, executive branch—why won't you fix it? I mean, so, law students out there: read this thing, learn from it. It's a work of law, a work of art."
Watch the clip below or at this link.
