'Lack of urgency is painful': Legal experts react to Supreme Court's deportation ruling

Legal experts weighed in Thursday afternoon after the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" the return of a man wrongfully deported to El Salvador, with one expert lamenting the "lack of urgency" in the high court's ruling.

The conservative-leaning high court ruled that a lower court correctly ordered the Trump administration to "facilitate" Kilmar 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.

The case was sent back to the lower court, however, with the justices ruling, "the intended scope of the term 'effectuate' in the District Court's order is, however, unclear and may exceed the District Court's authority."

ALSO READ: Violent J6er who broke into Capitol announces run for Congress in East Texas

Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador on March 15 and has been detained in a notorious Salvadoran megaprison, the Center for Terrorism Confinement. The Trump administration acknowledged that his removal was due to an "administrative error" and said he is linked to the violent MS-13 street gang. Abrego Garcia has denied he's a member of the gang.

Any possible date for his return remains an open question under the high court's ruling, which vacated an April 7 deadline.

Legal experts and other observers gave an array of reactions to the court's muddy ruling.

Barb McQuade, a former federal prosecutor, wrote on X, "The lack of urgency is painful."

"Wow. The Supreme Court will require the Trump admin to facilitate the return of Kilmer Abrego Garcia—the innocent man the Trump admin extrajudicially renditioned to a prison camp in El Salvador. Three quarters of the people the Trump admin sent have no criminal record, per CBS," remarked Democratic strategist Sawyer Hackett.

Orin Kerr, a professor at Stanford Law School, wrote on X, "This is another Marbury-esque emergency docket ruling, it seems to me. It rejects the Trump Administration's view in a way that lower court judges will understand, but Trump is unlikely to notice or take objection to."

Kerr opined, "If you wanted to devise a way to have the Supreme Court quickly place limits on extraordinary assertions of power by a President who tends to get very angry at judges who do that, but without getting the President mad at all, you might try something like this."

Tristan Snell, who prosecuted Trump University, wrote on X, "Now the question is whether the govt will follow SCOTUS's order -- or will Trump defy it?"

Camilo Montoya-Galvez, immigration and politics reporter for CBSNews, chimed in on X, "Importantly, the Supreme Court instructs the Trump administration to 'share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor notes Abrego Gracia has now been in a notorious Salvadoran prison for '26 days and counting.'"

Montoya-Galvez flagged an "important caveat," as well.

"Since the Supreme Court here notes courts should give deference to the president's foreign affairs powers, the Trump administration could potentially argue the Salvadoran government does not want to release Abrego Garcia from prison, and say there's nothing the U.S. can do."