‘The order is a win for Trump’

What appeared to be a loss for the Trump administration was actually a win, according to MSNBC legal analyst Danny Cevallos.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ostensibly ruled 9-0 against the Trump administration in an order requiring the administration to “facilitate” the return flight of a Maryland illegal alien who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison.

Responding to the ruling Friday morning, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough celebrated it as a win for anti-Trumpers.

“Again, this wasn’t 5 to 4,” he said. “I must say, I expected this to be a 5 to 4 decision. I was that cynical, but once again, unsigned, which means 9 to 0.”

But Cevallos was quick to pour cold water on his celebration.

Listen:

“The order is a win for the Trump administration and, at least, that’s how they’re going to play it,” he began.

How so?

“Here’s what I mean,” Cevallos continued. “A real win for Garcia would have been an order that says, ‘hey, administration, I hear the Salvadorian president is going to be here Monday. Put Garcia on the plane seated next to him in a reclining seat, and he’d better be here Monday with the president.’ That would have been a clear win.”

“The reason I say this, the administration is going to call this a win, is there’s a lot of space, a lot of loophole potential in this order,” he added.

Evidently, in its ruling, the high court specifically ordered that the Trump administration “effectuate” the return of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland illegal alien who was accidentally, falsely accused of being an MS-13 gang member and then shipped off to CECOT.

“The administration has to ‘effectuate’ his return, but the court has to clarify what does it mean by ‘effectuate’ – I guarantee you,” Cevallos claimed.

“And here I am saying it now, the administration is going to say that whatever the district court clarifies ‘effectuate’ means, the administration is going to say: ‘Well, guess what we say. You don’t have the power to order us to do that because you’re essentially ordering us to engage in international relations, which you, an Article 3 court, another branch of the government, cannot order us to do.’ And we’re going to be right back here where we were this last week,” he added.

There’s also the issue of a 2019 ruling protecting Garcia from standard deportation (versus deportation to a prison).

“Abrego Garcia entered the country illegally sometime around 2011, but an immigration judge in 2019 – after reviewing evidence – withheld his removal,” according to CNN. “That meant that Abrego Garcia could not be deported to El Salvador.”

“A gang in his native country, the immigration judge found, had been ‘targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family’s pupusa business,’” the reporting continues.

Of course, gangs are no longer an issue in El Salvador anymore, so ideally the order shouldn’t still be active — yet it is.

Remember that Abrego-Garcia’s withholding of removal in 2019 was based on his fear that the 18th Street Gang would persecute him if he returned to El Salvador.

Well, thankfully, Nayib Bukele has CRUSHED the 18th street gang. It is now safe for Abrego-Garcia to return! pic.twitter.com/M4cJcfGnxR

— Will Chamberlain (@willchamberlain) April 1, 2025

“Consider this: The court ordered [the administration] to facilitate his return so his case could be handled as if it was properly handled,” Cevallos continued. “Remember, the 2019 order for Garcia by an immigration judge just really prevented his return to El Salvador. In theory, any of the other 193 countries out there might be perfectly all right. And if this case was handled the way it should have been, that could still result in his removal.”

He concluded his remarks by admitting that the Supreme Court’s decision in this case — as well as another — was definitely a win for due process. But again he cautioned that this still isn’t enough.

Cevallos did acknowledge that the ruling was important, as Scarborough highlighted, and that the Supreme Court was taking a stand for “due process” — but warned the limitations of the order were clear. He continued:

“Taken together, the two Supreme Court cases over the last week or so do stand for the idea that people subject to removal are entitled to due process, but sometimes even due process can be relatively hollow, because as long as they give them that notice, and as long as they give them that hearing, arguably these folks can still be removed,” he said.

“So yes, a win for due process. But I promise you, hear me now, the administration will call this a win for themselves. Or at least that’s how they’ll play their hand,” he added.

Senior Staff Writer
[email protected]

V. Saxena is a staff writer for BizPac Review with a decade of experience as a professional writer, and a lifetime of experience as an avid news junkie. He holds a degree in computer technology from Purdue University.

Latest posts by Vivek Saxena (see all)

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.