Vice President J.D. Vance is facing heavy backlash after defending the Trump administration’s controversial deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was sent to a harsh prison in El Salvador, even after the Supreme Court ruled against it.
On Tuesday, Vance took to the social media site X (formerly Twitter) to argue that the administration’s handling of the case didn’t violate due process, despite a unanimous 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court. His remarks, seen by many as dismissive of basic constitutional rights, have sparked outrage across political and legal circles.
In his post, Vance said, “To say the administration must observe ‘due process’ is to beg the question: what process is due is a function of our resources, the public interest, the status of the accused, the proposed punishment, and so many other factors.”
He continued by comparing legal processes, writing, “To put it in concrete terms, imposing the death penalty on an American citizen requires more legal process than deporting an illegal alien to their country of origin.”
He then challenged critics by saying, “Ask the people weeping over the lack of due process what precisely they propose for dealing with Biden’s millions and millions of illegals.
And with reasonable resource and administrative judge constraints, does their solution allow us to deport at least a few million people per year?”
Vance’s comments quickly drew criticism from MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough, who questioned whether Vance’s Ivy League law school education taught him anything about the Constitution.
On his show Morning Joe, Scarborough responded sarcastically, mocking Vance’s legal background.
“Well, you know, I’m just a simple country lawyer,” Scarborough began. “I didn’t go to Yale or wherever he went; Yale, Harvard, whatever uppity schools he went to. I went to the University of Alabama — Roll Tide — and the University of Florida — go Gators.
But I can tell you, I don’t know what they taught at Yale. I can tell you in southern state schools, they taught something called due process.”
Scarborough also referenced a recent moment that went viral, where voters in Iowa confronted Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) over the Abrego Garcia case. “So you see those people out in Iowa, maybe they did not go to the law school that J.D. went to,” he said, “but I guess I should thank Jesus on Holy Week that I went to a law school that taught due process.”
Scarborough didn’t stop there. He pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision meant there was no legal gray area. “They also taught us that if the Supreme Court rules on something nine to nothing, that’s the Constitution. That’s the law of the land,” he said.
He then criticized Vance further, saying, “To tweet that after the Supreme Court ruled nine to nothing — that due process still existed in America for people the administration wanted to whisk away — for a guy that went to Yale Law School, that’s kind of unbelievable.”
What makes the backlash even more intense is that the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, often known for its conservative views, also condemned the Trump administration’s actions in this case.
The board highlighted the disturbing lack of due process Abrego Garcia faced, as well as the brutal conditions of the Salvadoran prison he was sent to.
This entire controversy is now growing beyond legal and political lines. It’s become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over immigration policy, constitutional rights, and the boundaries of executive power.
Many see Vance’s tone as not only dismissive but dangerous, especially when he’s defending actions that even the highest court in the land unanimously rejected.
As the story unfolds, all eyes are now on how the Trump campaign will respond, especially with Vance being a key figure in the administration. And with the legal community weighing in, it’s clear this issue won’t fade anytime soon.