The
United
States
Department
of
Justice
continues
its
effort
to
keep
Kilmar
Armando
Abrego
Garcia
in
an
El
Salvadoran
slave
camp
even
though
they’ve
already
admitted
in
front
of
multiple
tribunals
up
to
and
including
the
Supreme
Court
that
he
was
deported
in
error.
The
DOJ’s
most
recent
contribution
to
their
oeuvre
of
excrement
is
a
set
of
interrogatory
responses
filed
in
the
district
court
proceeding.
And
I
have
a
theory
how
it
happened…
Now,
we’re
going
to
get
a
little
technical
here,
but
the
term
for
the
DOJ’s
response
is
a
“lie.”
Or
more
properly,
an
embarrassing
and
contemptuous
lie.
For
anyone
familiar
with
The
Royal
Tenenbaums,”
the
government’s
response
is
basically
“everyone
knows
the
Supreme
Court
unanimously
ordered
us
to
‘facilitate
Abrego
Garcia’s
release
from
custody,’
what
this
filing
we’re
signing
as
officers
of
the
court
presupposes
is…
‘maybe
they
didn’t?’”
For
the
record,
the
Supreme
Court’s
order
reads:
The
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.
Which
is
—
notably
—
NOT
“take
all
available
steps
to
facilitate
the
return
of
Abrego
Garcia
to
the
United
State.”
Also…
“United
STATE”?!?!
That’s
an
embarrassing
“[sic]”
in
any
circumstances
but
for
the
United
States
Department
of
Justice
you’d
think
they’d
get
it
right
because
it’s
RIGHT
THERE
IN
THEIR
NAME.
They
put
“emphasis
added”
on
a
quote
that
ISN’T
IN
THE
ORDER!
The
Supreme
Court’s
order
is,
I
believe,
217
words.
The
relevant
sentence
is
almost
20
percent
of
the
whole
fucking
order.
Yet,
the
Trump
administration
seemingly
could
not
be
bothered
to
sift
through
the
order
to
find
the
right
quote.
Instead
they
change
“release
from
custody
in
El
Salvador”
to
“return…
to
the
United
States”
—
SORRY,
“United
State”
—
in
a
bid
to
move
the
goalposts
all
the
way
out
of
the
stadium.
How
did
this
happen?
There
is
the
theory
that
they’re
begging
for
contempt.
That
would
provide
an
opportunity
for
a
massive
constitutional
showdown
when
Trump
attempts
to
pardon
the
DOJ
out
from
under
contempt
—
an
untested,
mostly
academic
theory
—
while
the
judiciary
could
argue
that
its
inherent
contempt
powers
descend
from
the
English
common
law.
It
could
also
be
Hanlon’s
Razor
and
the
DOJ
lawyers
willing
to
sign
their
names
to
this
case
are
just
remarkably
stupid.
It’s
ChatGPT.
Or
Grok
—
now
with
“all
court
cases!”
—
or
whatever
other
consumer-grade
generative
AI
the
DOJ
has
farmed
out
its
work
to.
Hear
me
out…
it’s
one
thing
for
a
lawyer
to
misrepresent
a
Supreme
Court
quote
(issued
this
month
in
the
very
same
matter,
mind
you).
A
likely
sanctionable
error
in
itself,
but
to
misquote
it?
That
takes
an
extra
level
of
failure
in
legal
research.
And
whoever
put
this
together
took
that
fake
quote
and
decided
to
add
emphasis
to
it,
meaning
they
cited
the
Supreme
Court
—
technically
the
Justice
Sotomayor
separate
opinion
itself
quoting
the
order
—
but
never
bothered
to
check
the
quote
against
the
actual
opinion.
That’s
how
every
generative
AI
sanctions
case
has
happened!
How
would
they
have
gotten
a
broken
quote?
Maybe
by
framing
their
query
as
“can
you
give
me
the
exact
quote
where
the
Supreme
Court
said
the
government
has
to
facilitate
his
return?”
A
faulty
prompt
can
generate
a
faulty
answer.
Or
maybe
it’s
because
the
administration
keeps
going
out
and
pretending
the
Court
said
“return”
not
“release”
—
and
the
mainstream
media’s
adoption
of
that
frame
—
muddying
the
record
for
the
hapless
generative
AI
model.
Either
way,
garbage
in,
garbage
out.
This
theory
also
lends
significance
to
the
goofy
“United
State”
typo
if
the
Justice
Department
tried
to
copy
and
paste
out
of
ChatGPT
and
missed
the
last
letter…
something
almost
everyone
has
done.
Is
this
speculation?
Sure.
But
while
Hanlon’s
Razor
is
powerful,
Occam’s
Razor
suggests
that
a
DOJ
lawyer
wouldn’t
get
a
quote
blatantly
wrong
if
it
copied
and
pasted
it
from
the
text
of
the
actual
order…
but
they
would
if
they
weren’t
using
legal
research
software
to
draft
their
brief
and
instead
turned
it
over
to
a
hallucination
engine
primed
to
give
its
MAGA
prompt
the
answer
it
wanted.
And,
in
that
sense,
maybe
it’s
both
Hanlon
and
Occam
together.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.