Legal Expert Says Supreme Court Ruling on Trump Admin Isn’t as Clear-Cut as It Seems
So, the Supreme Court recently made a surprising call, unanimously ruling that the Trump administration has to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia a Maryland dad who was mistakenly deported to a prison in El Salvador. On the surface, it looks like a big win for Garcia’s family. But according to MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos, there’s more going on beneath the surface.
Chatting with Joe Scarborough on Morning Joe, Cevallos admitted he didn’t expect the conservative-leaning court to side with Garcia’s family. Still, he pointed out that the language in the ruling leaves plenty of loopholes the Trump-era DOJ could exploit.
Cevallos broke it down like this: the ruling sounds good, but it’s not a slam dunk. If the court had said, “Put Garcia on a plane with the Salvadorian president and get him back here by Monday,” that would’ve been a true win. Instead, the order tells the administration to “facilitate” his return which is vague and open to interpretation.
He also noted the language leaves room for the government to say, “Hey, he doesn’t have to come back to the U.S. he just needs to be removed from El Salvador.” That could mean being sent to any of the 190+ countries out there, which doesn’t necessarily help Garcia.
Then there’s the word “effectuate” another fuzzy term. Cevallos predicted the administration will argue that whatever a lower court says it means, they’re not bound to follow it. Why? Because it could be seen as the court trying to tell the government how to handle foreign affairs something they’ll likely say is outside the court’s authority.
Bottom line? While it may seem like Garcia won, the legal back-and-forth is far from over. And there’s a good chance we’ll see this issue back in court again soon.
