The Politics of Deception: Analyzing the Trump Administration's Misrepresentation of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Misrepresentation of the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a resident of Maryland, was deported to El Salvador under the Alien Enemies Act despite a 2019 immigration judge’s order halting his removal while his asylum request was pending. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the U.S. government must “facilitate” Garcia’s return, emphasizing the need to restore his legal status as though the deportation had not occurred.

However, the Trump administration interpreted “facilitate” narrowly, asserting no obligation to negotiate Garcia’s release from El Salvador’s custody. Stephen Miller declared, “We won the Supreme Court case 9-0,” implying the ruling favored the administration. This interpretation contradicted the Court’s intent and undermined judicial authority.

The Trump administration’s handling of the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Garcia’s deportation case illustrates a significant misrepresentation of judicial authority. This chapter examines the legal specifics, the administration’s interpretation, and the broader implications for the separation of powers in the United States.

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a long-term legal resident of Maryland, became the focus of a constitutional controversy after his deportation to El Salvador under the rarely invoked Alien Enemies Act of 1798. This statute, originally enacted during John Adams’ presidency, allows the U.S. government to apprehend, detain, or remove foreign nationals from nations deemed enemies during wartime. Although the Act remains in effect, it is seldom applied in modern immigration enforcement because of its outdated nature and its potential conflict with due process protections guaranteed under the Constitution.

Garcia had lived in the United States for over two decades, working as a landscaper and raising a family. In 2018, during the Trump administration’s broad crackdown on undocumented immigrants and foreign nationals from certain regions, Garcia was flagged by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for removal. However, in 2019, an immigration judge reviewed his asylum application and issued a stay on his deportation, citing credible fears of persecution should he be returned to El Salvador, including threats from transnational gangs and political violence.

Despite this judicial order, Garcia was forcibly removed from the U.S. His attorneys allege that the deportation occurred without adequate legal notification and in direct violation of the court's ruling. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) later referred to the deportation as an “administrative error,” though internal communications uncovered by investigative journalists suggest there may have been higher-level pressure to proceed with removals despite ongoing legal appeals (ProPublica, 2024).

Garcia’s case was brought before the Supreme Court following multiple challenges in lower courts. Civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), submitted amicus briefs arguing that Garcia’s rights under both U.S. immigration law and the Constitution were violated. Legal experts noted that the government's actions may have violated not only the immigration judge's stay but also the principle of habeas corpus—a cornerstone of American jurisprudence that protects individuals from unlawful detention and expulsion.

In April 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, declaring that the federal government must “facilitate” Garcia’s return and restore his legal status as if the deportation had never occurred. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts emphasized the importance of upholding judicial authority in immigration proceedings and stated that compliance with court orders was “non-negotiable, even under statutes as outdated as the Alien Enemies Act.”

The Court’s decision established a crucial precedent concerning the limits of executive power in immigration enforcement. It reaffirmed that judicial rulings must be respected and that the executive branch cannot unilaterally reinterpret or ignore the decisions of immigration judges or federal courts. Legal scholars noted that this ruling might have broader implications for other cases where immigrants were deported despite pending legal proceedings or protection orders.

The ruling also emphasized the legal distinction between “facilitating” a return and merely acknowledging a mistake. By requiring the restoration of Garcia’s prior legal status, the Court indicated that the remedy was not symbolic—it was substantial and enforceable, encompassing active diplomatic and logistical efforts by the U.S. government to ensure his return and reinstate his immigration proceedings.

In the wake of the ruling, human rights advocates celebrated the decision as a reaffirmation of judicial independence and due process. However, the Trump administration’s response—publicly declaring legal victory while delaying Garcia’s return—prompted accusations of contempt for constitutional norms and fueled concerns about the politicization of immigration law.

Legal Intervention:

• Advocacy groups like the ACLU and NILC filed amicus briefs, arguing violations of due process and habeas corpus.

• In April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. government must actively restore Garcia’s rights and status.

• Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that compliance with judicial orders is non-negotiable, regardless of outdated laws like the Alien Enemies Act.

Administration's Interpretation and Public Statements

Despite the Court's clear directive, the Trump administration narrowly interpreted " facilitate, “ asserting that it had no obligation to negotiate Garcia's release from El Salvador's custody. Stephen Miller, a senior advisor to President Trump, stated, "We won the Supreme Court case 9-0," suggesting that the ruling favored the administration (​Al Jazeera). This interpretation contradicts the Court's intent and undermines judicial authority.

Legal and Constitutional Implications

The administration's stance raises concerns about the balance of power among the branches of the U.S. government. By not actively seeking Garcia's return, the executive branch undermines the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law. Legal experts warn that such defiance sets a dangerous precedent, which could potentially weaken the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach (​The Atlantic).

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, expressed concern that the government's argument suggests it could deport and incarcerate any individual, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, as long as it acts before a court can intervene (​Supreme Court of the United States).

The Trump administration's misrepresentation of the Supreme Court's decision in Kilmar Abrego Garcia exemplifies a broader pattern of political deception. It raises questions about the erosion of truth in American governance. Upholding the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary is essential not only for individual cases but also for the survival of democratic institutions.

Erosion of Judicial Authority and the Threat to Constitutional Balance

The administration’s interpretation of the ruling undermines:

• The separation of powers

• The authority of the judiciary

• The integrity of the rule of law

Legal scholars like Laurence Tribe have called the administration's statements an "act of defiance" against the Constitution. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, warned this logic could lead to unchecked deportations—even of U.S. citizens—before courts can intervene.

The administration's stance has raised concerns about the balance of power among the branches of the U.S. government. By refusing to actively ensure Garcia's return, the executive branch challenges the judiciary's role in maintaining the rule of law. Legal experts caution that such defiance sets a dangerous precedent, potentially undermining the judiciary's ability to check executive overreach.

The misrepresentation of the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case by members of the Trump administration is not merely a political distortion—it strikes at the heart of the constitutional separation of powers. The U.S. Constitution establishes a system of checks and balances specifically to prevent any one branch of government from gaining undue power. When the executive branch publicly distorts or disregards the judiciary's rulings, it threatens this balance and undermines the rule of law.

When the executive branch distorts Supreme Court rulings, it threatens the checks and balances essential to American democracy. History shows similar patterns:

• Andrew Jackson’s defiance during Worcester v. Georgia

• Modern-day democratic erosion in Hungary, Poland, and Venezuela, where courts were sidelined by political leaders

As constitutional scholar Tom Ginsburg states:

“Respect for the judiciary isn’t just a constitutional ideal; it’s a practical necessity.”

Judicial Supremacy and Constitutional Design

The Founders established the judiciary as a coequal branch of government, vested with the authority to interpret laws and ensure that the Constitution is upheld. Chief Justice John Marshall cemented this principle in Marbury v. Madison(1803), stating it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." This foundational doctrine implies that the executive branch must respect and execute the Supreme Court’s rulings.

When the Trump administration claimed it had "won" the Supreme Court ruling—despite a 9-0 decision explicitly requiring the government to facilitate the return of an individual it had wrongfully deported—it established a precedent for dismissing judicial interpretation in favor of political spin.

“This is not just a matter of disagreement. It is an act of defiance,” stated constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe in a recent analysis. “It’s a repudiation of the Court’s authority, and that has dangerous implications for democratic governance” (Harvard Law Today, 2025).

Undermining Compliance with Judicial Orders

Historically, failure by the executive to comply with judicial rulings has triggered constitutional crises. President Andrew Jackson’s alleged statement—“John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”—during the Worcester v. Georgia case reflected a dangerous assertion of executive supremacy. While Trump’s misstatement may not carry the same direct legal defiance, the public deception regarding the Court’s decision erodes understanding of and faith in judicial rulings.

Legal scholars caution that the persistent misrepresentation of court decisions fosters the perception that courts are merely advisors rather than arbiters. This misrepresentation can reduce the judiciary's ability to uphold civil rights, immigration protections, and impose checks on executive overreach.

“When the president declares false victories over the courts, it is not just misleading—it’s corrosive,” explained Mary Ziegler, a legal historian at UC Davis. “It signals that judicial review is optional, not binding” (The Atlantic, 2024).

Long-Term Institutional Damage

The broader concern is institutional legitimacy. The U.S. Supreme Court relies not on an army or purse but on credibility. Alexander Hamilton famously referred to the judiciary as the “least dangerous” branch because it has “neither force nor will.” However, its authority is indispensable. If citizens begin to perceive Supreme Court decisions as subject to manipulation by political leaders, the judiciary's role as an impartial arbiter is diminished.

This erosion can lead to cascading effects. If the executive branch normalizes the notion that it can redefine or disregard court orders, lower courts might also see their rulings increasingly ignored. Legal norms start to become unstable, and the consistency upon which American jurisprudence depends begins to unravel.

A Comparative Constitutional Warning

Globally, the weakening of judicial independence often precedes democratic backsliding. Countries like Hungary, Poland, and Venezuela have experienced the politicization or sidelining of their courts through similar rhetorical strategies. What starts as a "mere" distortion of legal interpretation frequently lays the groundwork for the consolidation of unchecked power.

“Respect for the judiciary isn’t just a constitutional ideal; it is a practical necessity for a functioning democracy,” observed Tom Ginsburg, Professor of International Law at the University of Chicago (Ginsburg & Huq, 2018).

The Illusory Truth Effect — Why Repetition Works

Repetition makes falsehoods feel true.

• Brashier & Marsh (2020): People rate false claims as more accurate after hearing them repeatedly.

• Lynn Hasher (University of Toronto) a psychologist at the University of Toronto, in an interview with The New York Times (Carey, 2016):

  • “Repetition makes a fact seem more true, regardless of whether it is or not.”

The Trump administration's repetition of false claims—like winning a 9-0 ruling—manipulates public perception, especially across social media echo chambers.

Political deception is not a new phenomenon. Research indicates that politicians may lie for various reasons, including protecting their image, avoiding embarrassment, or advancing policy agendas. In the context of the Garcia case, the administration's misrepresentation of the Supreme Court's decision seems to be an effort to maintain a tough stance on immigration and deflect criticism.

Moreover, studies indicate that repeated exposure to falsehoods can cause individuals to accept them as truth, a phenomenon known as the "illusory truth effect." This effect highlights the importance of holding public officials accountable for misinformation.

One of the most powerful psychological mechanisms behind political deception is the illusory truth effect, a cognitive bias where individuals are more likely to accept repeated statements as true — even if they are false. First documented in the late 1970s, this effect poses significant risks in the era of 24-hour news cycles and social media echo chambers.

Research from Brashier and Marsh (2020) shows that even individuals who know a statement is false are more likely to rate it as accurate after hearing it multiple times. This repetition-based persuasion has been significantly used in political communication, where slogans, talking points, and media surrogates reinforce a specific narrative until it becomes common knowledge.

In the context of Trump-era communication strategies, falsehoods — such as claims of election fraud or mischaracterizations of Supreme Court rulings — were often repeated across multiple channels, creating a sense of legitimacy through sheer volume.

Politicians exploit the brain’s tendency to associate familiarity with accuracy, allowing repeated lies to gain the same cognitive status as truth.

Motivated Reasoning and Tribal Loyalty

Another cornerstone of political deception’s psychological success is motivated reasoning. This refers to the tendency of individuals to process information in a way that aligns with their existing beliefs, often ignoring evidence to the contrary. In politics, voters are likely to accept lies from trusted leaders, especially if those lies affirm their worldview or identity.

According to research from the Stanford Political Psychology Research Group, partisanship shapes how people vote and interpret reality. Nyhan and Reifler (2010) found that when presented with factual corrections to false political claims, individuals often double down on their original beliefs — a phenomenon known as the backfire effect.

This effect is amplified during cultural polarization, where facts become secondary to tribal identity. Supporters are more likely to dismiss lies as harmless or necessary, while opponents become further entrenched in opposition.

“Partisanship has become a lens not only on politics but on truth itself,” explains Dr. Brendan Nyhan (Brookings, 2019).

Political lies are sustained by emotional reasoning and group identity, making factual rebuttals less effective in changing minds.

Desensitization and the Lie Fatigue Effect

With 30,000+ false or misleading claims documented during Trump’s presidency (Washington Post), the public becomes numb to dishonesty.

Dr. Jennifer Mercieca, author of Demagogue for President (Texas A&M University, 2020).

“Eventually, people stop caring whether it is true. They just want the noise to stop.”

This fatigue erodes public vigilance, normalizing misinformation.

As political lies become more frequent, the public may become desensitized — a phenomenon sometimes called “lie fatigue.” The brain adapts to frequent exposure to deception by reducing the emotional and cognitive response to new instances. Over time, the public becomes numb, less shocked by dishonesty, and more likely to accept it as standard behavior.

Dr. Sander van der Linden of the University of Cambridge describes this as normalizing falsehoods. In a 2020 study, van der Linden et al. found that exposure to repeated disinformation without effective rebuttal increases tolerance for dishonesty and undermines confidence in democratic institutions (van der Linden et al., 2020).

Donald Trump’s tenure has been characterized by prolific falsehoods, with The Washington Post documenting over 30,000 false or misleading claims during his presidency. This volume overwhelmed fact-checkers and shifted the public’s attention from the content of the lies to the spectacle of the lying itself.

When lies are constant and unchallenged, society can become apathetic, creating an environment where truth no longer holds value.

Public Response and the Impact on Trust

According to the 2024 Pew Research Center, only 22% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right “most of the time.” This distrust undermines:

• Civic participation

• Compliance with laws

• Confidence in institutions

RAND Corporation’s “Truth Decay” report outlines the dangers of blurred fact vs. opinion and rising distrust in formerly respected sources.

The widespread dissemination of political misinformation has measurable consequences on public trust in democratic institutions. According to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey, only 22% of Americans reported that they trust the federal government to do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time”—a historically low figure that reflects decades of declining confidence in government (Pew Research Center, 2024). While marginally higher than the 2023 rate of 16%, this figure is emblematic of deep-seated disillusionment and public fatigue with political leadership and perceived dishonesty.

This erosion of trust has a ripple effect throughout the political system. When citizens lose faith in the federal government, they are less likely to participate in civic processes, comply with institutional decisions, or engage in informed political discourse. The RAND Corporation (2018) describes this phenomenon as Truth Decay, a societal trend marked by increasing disagreement about facts and data, a blurring of the line between opinion and fact, and declining trust in formerly respected sources of information. The result is a more polarized electorate and a diminished capacity for effective governance.

Political scientists argue that public trust is not merely a barometer of satisfaction with leadership—it is foundational to the legitimacy and functionality of democratic institutions. A sustained loss of trust can contribute to political apathy, voter suppression, extremism, and the rejection of evidence-based policymaking (RAND Corporation, 2018). It may also embolden political actors to manipulate information further if they believe accountability mechanisms, such as public backlash or judicial review, have lost effectiveness.

Rebuilding trust in the democratic system requires a multi-faceted strategy. Media organizations must rigorously fact-check political claims and avoid false balance reporting. Educational institutions should promote media literacy and critical thinking skills to help individuals discern misinformation. Public officials must prioritize transparency, consistency, and truthfulness in their communication. Without these collective efforts, democratic institutions risk continued erosion and diminished resilience in the face of misinformation and authoritarian rhetoric.

The Evolution of Political Deception in America

Over the past fifty years, political deception in the United States has undergone significant transformation, influenced by factors such as media fragmentation, the rise of social media, and shifting norms around truthfulness. From the Watergate scandal to the misinformation campaigns of recent elections, deception has become a more prominent feature of the political landscape.​

The current media environment, characterized by rapid information dissemination and partisan echo chambers, allows falsehoods to spread more easily and makes it more challenging for the public to discern truth from fiction. Social media platforms have enabled the rapid spread of misinformation, often outpacing efforts to correct false narratives. As a result, the public is increasingly exposed to conflicting information, leading to confusion and skepticism.​

This evolution of political deception has tangible effects on public trust. A Pew Research Center study found that only 22% of Americans trust the federal government to do what is right "just about always" or "most of the time," reflecting a significant decline over the past several decades (Pew Research Center, 2024). This erosion of trust can lead to increased polarization and cynicism toward democratic institutions.​

Addressing the challenges posed by political deception requires a multifaceted approach. Media organizations must prioritize accurate reporting and fact-checking, while social media platforms should implement measures to curb the spread of misinformation. Public education initiatives focused on media literacy can also empower individuals to evaluate information sources critically. By fostering a culture of transparency and accountability, it is possible to mitigate the impact of political deception and restore public trust in democratic institutions.​

Upholding Truth and Judicial Authority in Democratic Governance

The Noem v. Abrego Garcia case reveals a deeper crisis: when the executive branch misleads the public and undermines court rulings, the democratic fabric begins to fray.

Exposing deception is not enough—society must also resist the normalization of political lies and reaffirm the Constitution’s core principles.

"Vigilance in the face of deception—and a refusal to accept misrepresentation as standard political practice—is essential to preserving the integrity of American democracy."

The Trump administration’s handling of the Noem v. Abrego Garcia case highlights the serious consequences of political deception and its corrosive effects on judicial authority and public trust. Despite a unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court directing the government to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador, senior administration officials falsely claimed legal victory. In particular, senior adviser Stephen Miller publicly asserted, “We won the Supreme Court case 9-0,” mischaracterizing the Court’s actual mandate and suggesting that the ruling vindicated the administration’s position (The Guardian, 2025).

Such misrepresentation directly challenges the constitutional balance of powers. As Justice Sotomayor warned in her concurring opinion—joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson—this interpretation of the ruling implies the federal government could “deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene” (Supreme Court of the United States, 2025, p. 5). This type of executive defiance risks delegitimizing judicial review, one of the bedrock principles of American constitutional democracy established in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Beyond institutional implications, these actions contribute to a broader climate of public cynicism and eroding trust in democratic systems. Public confidence in the judiciary is essential for the rule of law and social cohesion. Without it, individuals may be less inclined to comply with judicial rulings or believe in the fairness of the legal process (Colorado Judicial Institute, 2024). Scholars have emphasized the dangers of unchecked political lying, warning that constant exposure to misinformation leads to desensitization, apathy, and democratic backsliding (Center for Applied Ethics, 2022; RAND Corporation, 2018).

As misinformation becomes more prevalent, a collective societal response is required. Civic institutions, media organizations, and individual citizens must prioritize accuracy, transparency, and adherence to constitutional norms. Vigilance in the face of deception—and a refusal to accept misrepresentation as standard political practice—is essential to preserving the integrity of American democracy.

References

Al Jazeera. (2025, April 15). Did US courts back Kilmar Abrego Garcia's El Salvador deportation?https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/15/did-us-courts-back-kilmar-abrego-garcias-el-salvador-deportation

Brashier, N. M., & Marsh, E. J. (2020). Judging truth. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 499–515. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807

Brookings Institution. (2019). The decline of truth in American politics. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-decline-of-truth-in-american-politics/

Carey, B. (2016, September 3). How we come to believe the biggest lies. The New York Times.https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/upshot/how-we-come-to-believe-the-biggest-lies.html

CBS News. (2025, April 14). White House aide Stephen Miller defends wrongful deportation of man to El Salvador.https://www.cbsnews.com/video/white-house-aide-stephen-miller-defends-wrongful-deportation-of-man-to-el-salvador/

Center for Applied Ethics. (2022). The dangers of political lies. Santa Clara University. https://www.scu.edu/ethics-spotlight/social-media-and-democracy/the-dangers-of-political-lies/

Colorado Judicial Institute. (2024). Why is public trust in the judicial system important?https://coloradojudicialinstitute.org/what-we-do/public-education/explainer-why-is-public-trust-in-the-judicial-system-important.html

Harvard Gazette. (2024, December 4). Rising 'epidemic of political lying'.https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/12/rising-epidemic-of-political-lying/

Mercieca, J. (2020). Demagogue for President: The rhetorical genius of Donald Trump. Texas A&M University Press. https://liberalarts.tamu.edu/news/2020/08/03/how-trump-uses-language-to-control-the-narrative/

Misinformation Review. (2020). Misinformation in action: Fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power. https://misinforeview.hks.harvard.edu/article/misinformation-in-action-fake-news-exposure-is-linked-to-lower-trust-in-media-higher-trust-in-government-when-your-side-is-in-power/

Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-010-9112-2

Pew Research Center. (2024). Public Trust in Government: 1958–2024.https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/06/24/public-trust-in-government

RAND Corporation. (2018). Truth Decay: An initial exploration of the diminishing role of facts and analysis in American public life. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2314.html

Supreme Court of the United States. (2025). Noem v. Abrego Garcia, 24A949. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a949_lkhn.pdf

The Atlantic. (2025, April 14). The Constitutional Crisis Is Here.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2025/04/bukele-trump-court-order/682432/

The Guardian. (2025, April 14). Trump officials step up defiance over man wrongly deported to El Salvador.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/apr/14/trump-el-salvador-deportation-kilmar-abrego-garcia

van der Linden, S., Roozenbeek, J., & Compton, J. (2020). Inoculating against fake news about COVID-19. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 566790. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.566790

WAMC. (2023, December 18). The history of lying in American politics. https://www.wamc.org/commentary-opinion/2023-12-18/the-history-of-lying-in-american-politics

Wikipedia contributors. (2025). Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Kilmar_Abrego_Garcia