On the one hand, it could have been far, far worse. There is nothing in the two-page unsigned order that agrees with any of the insanely idiotic arguments proffered by Solicitor General John Sauer on behalf of the Trump administration, that having committed an “administrative error” by illegally renditioning Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, it was now beyond the district judge’s authority to compel the government to do anything to correct its screw up.

To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.

Clarification? What exactly needs to be clarified?

The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.

Granted, there could be some confusion as to exactly what “effectuate” requires the executive to do. Did it require the president to engage in negotiations with a foreign nation? Does it require the invasion of El Salvador to secure Abrego Garcia’s return? It might seem to most that the word “effectuate” should be read as “within reason and the limits of the court’s jurisdiction,” but that too is subject to dispute. So it’s not entirely surprising or dubious for the Court to direct clarification of the word “effectuate.”

But on the other hand, what would the Supreme Court want the district judge to say in clarification of “effectuate”? Try? Try hard? Try really, really hard? Maybe ask nicely? Maybe ask sternly? Then comes the final piece of the puzzle.

For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

To “share”?  What “it can”? Is this kindergarten? Does that mean the assistant tells the judge, “we tried but it just didn’t happen, and that’s all we can share, Judge, as the Supreme Court held.” Consider how this plays out at a more granular level.

Kristi Noem: President Bukele, we demand (wink) you return Abrego Garcia to us forthwith.

Nayib Bukele: No.

Kristi Noem: Well, I tried my best.

Of course, it’s possible that the Trump administration, in good faith, will use its best effort to secure the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, both because Judge Xinis ordered it and because it is the right thing to do. Then again, they could have done that in the first place rather than push this case to the Supreme Court, which issued its emergency order on the pretense that the President of the United States cares deeply about his administration’s adherence to the law.

The decision could have been far, far worse. On the other hand, it could have been far, far better. It’s back to the Trump administration to decide whether to fulfill the judge’s order in good faith and with its best efforts or to effectively ignore the law. I wonder what it will do.