Ian Millhiser, a senior correspondent at Vox, specializes in covering the Supreme Court, constitutional issues, and the ongoing decline of liberal democracy in the United States. Millhiser holds a Juris Doctor degree from Duke University and has authored two significant books focusing on the Supreme Court's influence and decisions.

The recent case of Noem v. Abrego Garcia has unveiled shocking circumstances that highlight the Trump administration's controversial handling of immigration issues. In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has granted some limited relief to the immigrant at the center of this case; however, this relief falls short of a full resolution.

In mid-March of this year, the Trump administration deported Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia back to El Salvador, where he is now detained in a notorious prison known for its harsh conditions and associations with terrorism. This deportation was particularly troubling due to a 2019 court order from an immigration judge that explicitly barred the government from returning Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, citing a clear probability of future persecution should he be sent back. This order remains valid and in effect.

Despite the serious implications of this situation, no justifiable legal reasoning has been provided by the Trump administration for this deportation. Administration officials have claimed that Abrego Garcia's removal was the result of an administrative error. When pressed by a federal judge for clarification on why the government could not arrange for his return, a Justice Department attorney admitted, The first thing I did was ask my clients that very question. Ive not received, to date, an answer that I find satisfactory.

The judge subsequently ordered that the federal government must facilitate and ensure Abrego Garcia's return to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7. However, despite this directive, Abrego Garcia remains in El Salvador. Following the Trump administrations request to the Supreme Court to vacate the judges order, Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked the requirement for his return, allowing the Court time to deliberate on the case.

On a significant note, the full Supreme Court lifted this block in what appears to be a unanimous 9-0 decision, although the justices sometimes choose not to publicly dissent on certain orders. Nevertheless, while the Court's decision seems to offer a glimmer of hope, it does not guarantee Abrego Garcia's immediate release or return to the United States.

Interestingly, the Supreme Court's three Democratic justices supported an opinion penned by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, indicating they would have preferred to uphold the lower court's order in its entirety. The Supreme Court's ruling, however, sends the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

In its conclusions, the Supreme Court acknowledged that the lower courts order properly requires the Government to facilitate Abrego Garcias release, while also stressing that the specific intent behind the term effectuate within the District Courts order may exceed its authority. The word facilitate suggests that the government is obliged to take necessary steps towards making something happen, whereas effectuate implies a stronger requirement to actually bring about that result.

While the Court did not delve deeply into the reasoning behind this limitation, insights from the Trump administration's arguments may provide some indications. They argued that the United States does not control the sovereign nation of El Salvador, nor can it compel El Salvador to follow a federal judges bidding. Thus, they deemed the lower courts order unenforceable.

Although the Supreme Courts order stops short of outright dismissal of the lower court's ruling, it does hint at the possibility that the U.S. government may request Abrego Garcias release, only to be met with refusal from the Salvadoran government. At that point, the courts may not be able to compel U.S. officials to act further.

Significantly, the Supreme Court has also stated that the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps. This implies that the justices expect judicial oversight over the administration's actions and are ready to intervene should they find that the government is not making sufficient efforts to secure Abrego Garcias release.

It is likely that the Trump administration could continue to delay progress in this case while awaiting the lower courts clarification of its directives. Additionally, further rounds of litigation may ensue if the administration fails to utilize all available resources to secure Abrego Garcias freedom. Meanwhile, he faces an uncertain future in a prison notorious for its human rights violations.