The Supreme Court has ruled that the Trump administration must work to bring back Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia — an alleged MS-13 gang member mistakenly deported to El Salvador — but without the strict deadline originally imposed by a lower court.

The justices agreed on Thursday that the administration should “facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia, who had been living in Maryland with his American wife and child before his removal. The order emphasizes that the government should share details about its efforts and the likelihood of success, while also kicking the case back to the lower court for clarification on its directive.

Chief Justice John Roberts had earlier paused the lower court’s order that would have required the administration to return Garcia by 11:59 p.m. this past Monday. Now, the Court says the government must act — but without being bound by an arbitrary clock.

The Trump administration admitted Garcia’s deportation was a clerical error but argued in court that he is an MS-13 member and poses a security threat. The administration further contended that bringing him back could risk national safety and interfere with executive control over immigration and foreign affairs.

Obama-appointed Judge Paula Xinis originally ordered the administration on April 4 to return Abrego Garcia, prompting the Trump team to ask for Supreme Court intervention. In the high court’s response, the justices took a more nuanced approach, saying that while courts have the power to offer relief, they must do so with “due regard” for the Executive Branch’s authority in foreign policy matters.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, blasted the government’s argument. She warned that the administration’s logic — that deportation beyond the border somehow removes court jurisdiction — could be used to unlawfully deport anyone, including American citizens, without consequence. She called that line of reasoning “plainly wrong.”

The court did not ultimately buy the administration’s sweeping claim of unchecked deportation power, but it also refrained from issuing an aggressive mandate. Instead, it returned the matter to the district court to clarify its use of the word “effectuate,” suggesting that such language may have gone too far in requiring the government to carry out specific diplomatic actions.

Garcia’s case has quickly become a legal flashpoint, touching on immigration enforcement, executive power, and judicial oversight. And it’s raising serious questions about how the Trump administration’s hardline deportation policies intersect with due process — particularly when the government admits its own mistake.

The administration now has the green light to continue opposing Garcia’s return in practical terms, but not to ignore the court outright. With the deadline erased and the lower court back in play, the legal tug-of-war is far from over.