Well, let's talk about Sotomayor's line and her dissent. It seems superficially far-fetched that something like that could happen to an American citizen. On the other hand, right that this is the implication of the government's position. So Aaron, realistically, what's the worst scenario you could see actually happening in the real world if that position is allowed to stand?

Well, El Salvador, President Bukele has been extremely clear that he would be happy to take American citizens. He said it when Marco Rubio was visiting the country. He has recently said it again. Trump has said he thinks it would be a good idea, but he's, you know, unsure whether it's legal. So the worst case scenario is that someone inside the White House says, hey, I don't really care what the lawyers say. I think it's legal and sells a prisoner to El Salvador and says, sure, you take him as part of this deal. Now, do I think that's likely? No, I hope not. I hope there are still enough adults in the room that would stop something like that from happening. But here we have a foreign president who has openly said he would take U.S. citizens the United States wanted to send there and an administration that has been very heavily flirting with the idea. Well,

I think we should find Sotomayor's warning terrifying, don't you? Yeah.

And this is why how the Supreme Court rules on Mr. Obrego Garcia's case is really going to be telling. If they actually say there's nothing the judges could do, we are in a dangerous place. Now, that is not the same as saying that people are suddenly going to be rounded up and grabbed off the street and shipped to El Salvador. I don't think that's the same thing. But what it is saying is that one core way to prevent some sort of awful abuse like that is gone. And that essentially the administration could do something. And as so long as they were quick enough to get someone out of the country in time to avoid a court order, there's nothing a judge could do. And that should scare anybody. That doesn't comport with any principles of due process that I can think of or even that we've ever had in our country. And of course, if you look at the Declaration of Independence, the Declaration of Independence has as one of the grievances against King George III that he took people away from their homes and sent them to foreign countries to be tried on made-up charges. And man, I don't want to be saying we're speedrunning the Declaration of Independence. Well, okay, that

sounds like an extreme scenario, but as you say, it would remove a check against that extreme scenario if the court just throws up its hands and says, we cannot compel the government to reverse an error, in quotes, like this one with Abrego Garcia. Where do you expect the court to rule on the Abrego Garcia matter? And also, I got to say, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court would uphold these deportations pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, which requires us to be at war or under invasion by a foreign power or government. Am I being too optimistic on both these? What's your general expectation on each front?

Yeah, well, I want to start with the Alien Enemies Act first, because again, to emphasize, the Supreme Court did not rule last night that his decision was legal to invoke the law. And that is something that is going to percolate up to the Supreme Court again. It may take a lot more time now, it could not potentially be argued until next year, given where we are in the court's schedule. Oral arguments are set to conclude at the end of April. So it's possible we might not get a decision on that for a while, but it's going to make it there eventually, because there is no argument, realistic argument, that we have been invaded by Tren de Aragua or the Venezuelan government, or that a gang that is already on the decline after the Venezuelan government cracked down on it badly two years ago is a foreign nation that was settled on the law. Like, this is a wartime law. Let's be serious about it. We are not at war. I hope that the justices, when they finally get up to answering that question, answer what should be an easy question. No, this is not a lawful use of the law. On Mr. Abrego Garcia, we genuinely don't know. Judge Wilkinson, I mentioned the Reagan appointee who said that this could lead to lawlessness. He also said, look, the government does have a point here to some extent. Yes, this guy is a Salvadoran man who is being held in a Salvadoran prison. And there is some argument that we couldn't simply order them to do the impossible. him back and at least have a judge looking over their shoulders, making sure they are actually making a good faith effort and not sort of trying to say the dog ate my homework and, you know, we tried, but nothing to be done. So I hope that the Supreme Court sees that distinction and says, even with all the national security and international relations and foreign affairs arguments the government is making at its core, this isn't a court order saying, you know, come hell or high water, bring the guy back. It's a court order saying, make an effort at it and make a real effort at it. And admit that you made a mistake, you know, you made a mistake, try to fix it. And the government is certainly not doing itself any favors here by taking such an extreme position, especially as we saw Justice Sotomayor pointing out in her Alien Enemies Act decision. Well,

when you put it like that, it becomes really clear that Sotomayor laid out what the actual stakes here really are. Aaron Reikland-Melnick, it's always good to talk to you, man. Thanks for the clarifying conversation. Thank you so

much for having me. You've

been listening to The Daily Blast with me, your host, Greg Sargent. The Daily Blast is a New Republic podcast and is produced by Riley Fessler and the DSR Network. you