The Limits of Judicial Reach: Executive Power and the Case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

The question before the Court was never whether Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia was a sympathetic figure. He is not. A member of the brutal MS-13 gang, Garcia was deported to El Salvador in error, but his profile does not lend itself to the iconography of the American immigration debate. He is not Emma Lazarus's tired, poor, or huddled masses. He is the face of a darker question, namely, what happens when the Judiciary nudges itself across the tripwire dividing domestic adjudication from foreign policy.

The Court's short opinion in Noem v. Garcia is, in part, a lesson in judicial modesty masquerading as equivocation. It holds a middle course: the government must "facilitate" Garcia's return, but the lower court's order to "effectuate" it may have overstepped. This is not semantic hairsplitting, but constitutional guardrail maintenance. Facilitation implies diplomatic overture; effectuation implies command. One is a request, the other an assertion of authority that courts do not possess in the conduct of foreign affairs.

The error that placed Garcia in El Salvador is real. The government should own it, and one can make a serious case that a lawful return followed by a proper adjudication under the immigration statutes would best serve justice and due process. But the question here is not Garcia's virtue nor the wisdom of his reentry. It is a question of who decides. And that question, when properly understood, has constitutional contours that matter far more than any individual petitioner.

To see this, we need to consider the limits of judicial authority. Federal courts are creatures of Article III. Their legitimacy derives from the Constitution, and their power is ultimately custodial, not generative. They interpret and apply the law, they do not conduct diplomacy. When a district court orders the Executive to "effectuate" a foreign national’s return, it crosses from the domain of legal redress into the realm of international relations. This is not merely a doctrinal footnote. It is the difference between separation of powers and judicial adventurism.

Consider the opinion’s warning: the district court must show "due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs." This is not judicial throat-clearing. It is a constitutional imperative. Since United States v. Curtiss-Wright in 1936, the Court has recognized that the Executive holds "plenary and exclusive power" in foreign relations. Whatever else the judiciary may do, it does not negotiate with foreign governments. It cannot direct ambassadors, engage consular authorities, or order El Salvador to release a prisoner. To assume otherwise is to permit the bench to become a backdoor Department of State.

Nor should this be surprising. Courts are ill-equipped to weigh diplomatic consequences. What if El Salvador refuses? What if compliance requires quid pro quo arrangements? These are questions of strategy and reciprocity, not legality. Judges cannot be expected to navigate the opaque logic of foreign ministries. To pretend otherwise is to elevate legal formalism above the gritty realpolitik of diplomacy.

That is precisely why the Court was careful to limit its directive. The government must "facilitate" Garcia's release, yes, but also "ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador." This is a nuanced remedy. It instructs the Executive to act as if the error had not occurred, that is, to restore process, not outcome. Importantly, it does not instruct the government to bring Garcia back by any means necessary. Instead, it preserves the Constitution's equilibrium: judicial relief without commandeering foreign policy.

Yet, predictably, the media chorused in triumph: "The Supreme Court said he has a right to be here!" In fact, it said no such thing. The ruling is narrower than many care to admit, and wiser for it. It does not affirm Garcia's entitlement to remain in the United States. It affirms the more abstract, but more foundational, principle that administrative errors should not become permanent exiles. This is a far cry from granting Garcia permanent legal status or denying the Executive its prerogatives.

But what if the Trump administration does make inquiries and concludes that the matter is diplomatically deadlocked? What if El Salvador refuses to cooperate? Here we return to the critical ambiguity of "facilitate." The term demands effort, not success. It imposes a procedural burden, not an outcome guarantee. In this, the Court has left room for Executive discretion, even as it demands a good-faith showing.

That, too, is proper. Foreign affairs is a realm of imperfect options. The Founders understood this well. Hamilton, writing in Federalist No. 70, argued for "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch" in the Executive. These qualities, he claimed, were essential to the management of war, diplomacy, and national crises. A multi-member judiciary, debating remedy and precedent, could never substitute for a single Executive vested with the power to act swiftly and decisively abroad.

Even Jefferson, no friend to expansive federal power, conceded that certain exigencies "require the Executive to act on his own discretion." And so, when we ask whether a district judge can compel the repatriation of a foreign national through orders to the State Department, we are not just debating immigration procedure. We are challenging the very logic of the Executive branch.

This point is especially acute under the current administration. President Trump, duly re-elected and inaugurated, has assembled a Cabinet with clear mandates on border enforcement, law and order, and the reassertion of American sovereignty. Kristi Noem, as Secretary of Homeland Security, embodies these priorities. Her Department is not a passive respondent but an active architect of immigration policy. It must not be reduced to an errand boy for judicial overreach.

To allow that would be to unmoor the constitutional structure. Courts do not conduct foreign policy for the same reason Congress does not command troops and presidents do not write statutes. Each branch has its sphere, and each must be guarded against the encroachment of the others.

This does not mean judicial power is meaningless in such cases. It means that its meaning must be kept in proportion. A remedy that respects Executive discretion is not a dodge. It is a constitutional necessity. The Court has rightly recognized this, even if it did so in language subtle enough to be misread.

In the end, Noem v. Garcia is not about Garcia. It is about governance. It is a reminder that even in the face of bureaucratic error and human stakes, the architecture of our Republic matters. Justice is not simply about righting every wrong. It is about doing so within the bounds of legitimate authority. And in foreign affairs, that authority belongs, unequivocally, to the Executive.

Let the courts issue process. Let the Executive conduct diplomacy. Let each branch remain in its lane. The Constitution depends on it.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏.