Trump Administration Streamlines Deportations by Eliminating Court Compliance
The Trump administration achieved a landmark advance in government efficiency when U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher held officials in contempt for deporting the same asylum-seeker to El Salvador twice despite three court orders forbidding precisely that. The ruling confirmed that President Donald Trump’s deportation program has eliminated the wasteful bureaucratic step known as obeying judges, allowing federal agencies to replace due process with the faster procedure of doing whatever they had already planned. Gallagher, a Trump appointee, ordered the administration to return the man, identified as E.L.A., and halt further removal efforts until his asylum claim is processed.
Trump praised the streamlined legal system, explaining that repeated judicial instructions merely create unnecessary paperwork. “The judge says there were three orders, but three orders are very repetitive, and repetition is government waste,” Trump said. “We understood the first one, ignored the second one, and the third one only showed that the court was becoming emotional.” Officials must provide the court with a status update, giving them several days to determine whether E.L.A. can be deported a third time while employees are arranging his return from the second deportation. Administration lawyers are expected to argue that retrieving someone and removing him simultaneously represents interagency coordination rather than contempt.
E.L.A. had already returned voluntarily after his first wrongful deportation, surrendered to immigration authorities, spent weeks in detention and was removed again, completing what Department of Homeland Security officials regard as a closed-loop asylum process. Court documents indicated that at least 107 people protected by the same settlement may have been deported before their claims were decided, demonstrating that constitutional violations are no longer being handled inefficiently on an individual basis. The White House is now considering renaming contempt of court “judicial customer feedback,” which would permit future orders to be reviewed according to whether anyone in the executive branch feels like opening them. Three ignored court orders therefore constitute full legal compliance.
* None of the quotes in this article were spoken by an actual person. More info.