The saga of Kilmar Abrego Garcia has given enemies of the Trump administration a new favorite term: “constitutional crisis.” The use of it ad nauseam by figures like Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and fellow travelers in the legacy media inflates a single immigration case into a supposed assault on the republic’s foundations. By comparing this situation to genuine constitutional crises of the past and ignoring the real crisis posed by unchecked illegal immigration and sanctuary cities, Garcia, Van Hollen, and others spreading this alarmist message are acting in ways that are both misleading and politically opportunistic.

There are a few instances from American history that are often regarded as legitimate constitutional crises. In 1803, Marbury v. Madison established judicial review amid tensions over the judiciary’s role, resolving a potential crisis by clarifying the Supreme Court’s authority. During the Civil War, President Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus sparked debate over executive power, a crisis that was rooted in wartime necessity but also tested constitutional limits.

More recently, the Watergate scandal, where charges of President Nixon’s abuse of power and obstruction of justice led to his resignation, threatened the rule of law and public trust in government. These three cases involved allegations of systemic threats: a judiciary’s legitimacy, wartime overreach, or executive corruption undermining democracy itself.

The Abrego Garcia case, by contrast, does not rise to this level. Garcia, a Salvadoran national and likely MS-13 gang member in the U.S. illegally, was deported last month as part of the Trump administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to target illegal alien gang members.

The administration admitted in court that Garcia’s inclusion was an “administrative error” (although it maintains that he was still removable as he had unlawfully entered the United States and is a MS-13 gang member), and the Supreme Court ordered the government to “facilitate” his return so that the government can seek his removal through immigration processes if it so desires. Anti-Trump members of Congress, including Van Hollen, claim this defiance of court orders constitutes a crisis, pointing to Garcia’s alleged due process rights and the broader implications for constitutional protections.

Upon scrutiny, however, this case lacks the characteristics that would indicate a problem that is systemic in nature or a true constitutional crisis. It involves a single individual, not a wholesale attack on judicial authority or democratic norms. The administration’s actions, while contentious, operate within a legal framework subject to ongoing litigation.

Unlike Nixon’s alleged obstruction or Lincoln’s wartime edicts, this is a demonstrably legitimate dispute over execution of the law, not a rejection of judicial authority. Rhetoric to the contrary exaggerates the stakes, weaponizing the term “constitutional crisis” to score political points rather than addressing the nuances in the case.

Meanwhile, a far more legitimate crisis has been brewing for decades, largely ignored by those now crying foul: the systemic violation of federal immigration laws by sanctuary cities and their elected officials. Federal law, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, mandates cooperation with immigration enforcement, yet more than 600 sanctuary jurisdictions routinely shield illegal aliens from deportation.

Cities like San Francisco and Chicago, and even entire states like California, have enacted policies that limit or prohibit local law enforcement from complying with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers.

This defiance creates what could be called a federalism crisis by eroding the supremacy of federal law, a cornerstone of the Constitution under Article VI. When local officials unilaterally nullify federal statutes, they undermine the rule of law and create a patchwork of enforcement that destabilizes national policy.

The consequences of this defiance are tangible: the murder of Laken Riley last year in Athens, Georgia by an illegal alien previously released by local authorities was just one of many cases that highlight the human cost of sanctuary policies. Yet, leaders in sanctuary jurisdictions, many of whom now decry Garcia’s deportation, have championed these policies, celebrating their resistance as righteous moral defiance rather than legal overreach.

The scale of this crisis dwarfs that of the Garcia case. Thanks to lax enforcement and sanctuary policies, the total number of illegals in the country has been estimated at approximately 18.6 million. The refusal to enforce immigration laws has emboldened additional violators, creating a cycle of lawlessness that threatens the constitutional order far more than a single deportation paperwork error. Garcia’s case is a symptom of a broader immigration system broken by years of selective enforcement, not a crisis in and of itself.

The selective outrage of self-serving anti-border politicians reveals a double standard. They invoke the Constitution to defend Garcia’s purported right to due process, but remain silent when sanctuary cities flout federal law, undermining the same constitutional framework they claim to protect.

A true crisis is not a single, possible misapplication of process, but a sustained pattern of lawlessness and abuse that erodes the republic’s foundations. By endlessly misapplying the term “constitutional crisis” to the Garcia case, illegal immigration activists distract from the real threat posed by their own complicity in a decades-long erosion of federal authority. It is time to refocus the debate on the systemic failures that have brought us here, rather than inflating isolated cases for political gain.