Most people are familiar with Miranda rights, but few know the story behind the name. Ernesto Arturo Miranda confessed to kidnapping and rape, leading to his conviction and a sentence of 20 to 30 years. However, because his constitutional rights were violated, his confession was suppressed and could not be used to prove guilt at trial. The Supreme Court’s five-to-four decision sparked controversy, with critics arguing it granted criminals excessive rights, potentially allowing them to evade justice. Miranda was later retried without the confession and convicted again.
Another fundamental legal principle is that police cannot enter a person’s home without a warrant, even for an arrest. This was established in the 1980 Supreme Court case Payton v. New York. Theodore Payton was convicted of murder after police entered his home to make a felony arrest, finding a shell casing as evidence. The Court ruled that this violated Payton’s constitutional rights, rendering the shell casing inadmissible at trial.
These cases illustrate that critical constitutional safeguards often arise from cases involving unsympathetic defendants. The principle outweighs the individual, applying equally to the guilty and the innocent.
The case of Abrego Garcia underscores this lesson. Public attention has centered on Garcia himself—supporters portray him as a devoted family man with an American wife and children, while detractors label him a Venezuelan gang member and illegal immigrant. Overlooked are the significant legal issues, particularly the tension between the Judiciary and the Executive Branch, led by the president.
Garcia was deported to a prison in El Salvador without a warrant, where he remains detained. A legal challenge argued this violated his constitutional rights, especially since an immigration judge had previously ruled that deporting him to El Salvador would endanger his life. The government initially admitted Garcia’s removal was an “administrative error” but later attempted to retract this, blaming a rogue lawyer.
A Federal District Court judge ordered the government to “facilitate and effectuate the return of [Abrego Garcia] to the United States by no later than 11:59 p.m. on Monday, April 7.” The Department of Justice appealed to the Supreme Court, which issued a decision on April 10. The majority opinion stated: “The [District Court] order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador…. The Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.” The Court also requested clarification from the District Court on the specifics of its order.
Since then, the government has taken no action to facilitate Garcia’s return, offering implausible excuses. For instance, during a White House visit, El Salvador’s president mockingly declared he would not send Garcia back. President Trump remained silent. Yet Garcia is in El Salvador only because the United States requested his detention there. If Trump demanded his return, Garcia would likely be on the next flight back.
The Attorney General claimed a plane is on standby, asserting this fulfills their obligation. At other times, the administration has stated Garcia will not return, regardless of court orders.
This stance has implications far beyond Garcia’s case. The Executive Branch’s refusal to follow directives from the Judiciary, including the Supreme Court, is a dangerous abuse of power. It threatens the separation of powers that has sustained American democracy for nearly 250 years.
Moreover, if the government can seize Garcia and send him to a foreign prison without any opportunity for him to challenge the action, what prevents similar actions against others? This is not hypothetical—Trump has openly expressed intentions to target those he believes have wronged him. El Salvador has shown willingness to accept individuals the U.S. seeks to remove.
Miranda and Payton are landmark cases that established vital constitutional protections. The Garcia case raises equally significant issues. Rather than focusing on whether Garcia is a bad person, consider the broader implications. The government’s actions pose a serious threat to the rule of law.
Warren S. Hecht is a local attorney. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
