section_path: Reactions/Academics
section_name: Academics
paragraph_text: Academics
  
  Historian Timothy Snyder described the case as the "beginning of an American policy of state terror" against those living in the US, and discussed the development of state terror. In the initial stage, the state attempts to control language: it identifies some people as "criminals" and "terrorists"; it implies that because these people are bad, its own responses are good; and it associates any criticism of its actions with support for criminality and terrorism. In the next stage, the state moves away from the rule of law (for example, by finding purportedly "legal" means of avoiding constitutional constraints on its actions) and towards coercive power. This stage involves three components: a "leader principle", or Führerprinzip, in which the sovereign claims a popular mandate that makes their claims and actions proper; a "state of exception", in which the sovereign claims a threat that justifies lawless state actions against those supposedly creating the threat; and a "zone of statelessness", either in another country or in an internal concentration camp, where people are not protected by laws. Snyder argued that all of these components are present in this case, and that this is a test of whether Americans will stand for the rule of law, both individually and by demanding that Congress do likewise.
  
  Legal scholar Ryan Goodman and counterterrorism expert Thomas Joscelyn noted that the Trump administration acknowledged violating a judge's withholding of removal order, and that both the district court and the circuit court of appeals have ruled that the administration violated Abrego Garcia's right to due process. Goodman and Joscelyn added that not only is the administration "openly flouting" the Supreme Court's order that it facilitate Abrego Garcia's release, but the administration claims that it cannot do so, and even mocks the idea of his return. They argued that despite the government's efforts to focus the public's attention on Abrego Garcia's alleged ties to MS-13, the case "is about the rule of law, not allegations about Abrego Garcia's gang membership", especially "the Trump administration's defiance of the courts and denial of due process – a most basic constitutional right."
  
  In response to the Trump administration's brief to the Supreme Court, where the solicitor general argued that no court can order the administration to seek Abrego Garcia's return, legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Laurence Tribe wrote that it "is using this case to establish a truly chilling proposition: that no one can stop the Trump administration from imprisoning any people it wants anywhere else in the world", and called that both "lawless" and "frightening".
  
  Historian Timothy Snyder described the case as the "beginning of an American policy of state terror" against those living in the US, and discussed the development of state terror. In the initial stage, the state attempts to control language: it identifies some people as "criminals" and "terrorists"; it implies that because these people are bad, its own responses are good; and it associates any criticism of its actions with support for criminality and terrorism. In the next stage, the state moves away from the rule of law (for example, by finding purportedly "legal" means of avoiding constitutional constraints on its actions) and towards coercive power. This stage involves three components: a "leader principle", or Führerprinzip, in which the sovereign claims a popular mandate that makes their claims and actions proper; a "state of exception", in which the sovereign claims a threat that justifies lawless state actions against those supposedly creating the threat; and a "zone of statelessness", either in another country or in an internal concentration camp, where people are not protected by laws. Snyder argued that all of these components are present in this case, and that this is a test of whether Americans will stand for the rule of law, both individually and by demanding that Congress do likewise.
  
  Legal scholar Ryan Goodman and counterterrorism expert Thomas Joscelyn noted that the Trump administration acknowledged violating a judge's withholding of removal order, and that both the district court and the circuit court of appeals have ruled that the administration violated Abrego Garcia's right to due process. Goodman and Joscelyn added that not only is the administration "openly flouting" the Supreme Court's order that it facilitate Abrego Garcia's release, but the administration claims that it cannot do so, and even mocks the idea of his return. They argued that despite the government's efforts to focus the public's attention on Abrego Garcia's alleged ties to MS-13, the case "is about the rule of law, not allegations about Abrego Garcia's gang membership", especially "the Trump administration's defiance of the courts and denial of due process – a most basic constitutional right."
  
  In response to the Trump administration's brief to the Supreme Court, where the solicitor general argued that no court can order the administration to seek Abrego Garcia's return, legal scholars Erwin Chemerinsky and Laurence Tribe wrote that it "is using this case to establish a truly chilling proposition: that no one can stop the Trump administration from imprisoning any people it wants anywhere else in the world", and called that both "lawless" and "frightening".