Chief Justice Roberts has issued an administrative stay after a district court and an appeals court effectively required that the Trump administration act to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, who was deported and forced into an El Salvadorean prison, by 11:59 p.m. on Monday. This market will resolve based on the next decision that the Court makes regarding this case. In the case that the Court does not convincingly act in one way or the other, the market will resolve to "Any sort of punt or technicality that does not largely resolve the issue". In the case that the Court sends the issue back down to a lower court but seems to side with one side over the other or other edge cases, I reserve the right to decide how the market resolves based on the spirit of the question. As there is a potential element of subjectivity in this market, I will not bet.
Update 2025-04-07 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Clarification on the 'punt' resolution:
If the case is remanded to another venue and remains unresolved, taking longer to reach a decision, it will be considered a punt outcome.
1,000
3.00@Balasar I appeal that the ongoing case in the lower court confirms my reading below that the Supreme Court punted on the question.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the District Court clarified:
the Court hereby amends the Order to DIRECT that Defendants take all available steps to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia to the United States as soon as possible.
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.51.0.pdf)
Note that the "effect" language has been completely removed, and the government is now only required to "facilitate" return.
In a filing today, the defendants (government) say:
Defendants understand “facilitate” to mean what that term has long meant in the immigration context, namely actions allowing an alien to enter the United States. Taking “all available steps to facilitate” the return of Abrego Garcia is thus best read as taking all available steps to remove any domestic obstacles that would otherwise impede the alien’s ability to return here. Indeed, no other reading of “facilitate” is tenable—or constitutional—here.
(https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815/gov.uscourts.mdd.578815.65.0.pdf)
@jcb I understand your argument here. It seems like the court left some weasel words in its order to avoid a constitutional crisis, which the Trump administration has seized on. A plain reading of the order is that the Trump administration should at least ask for the return of the deported man, which has clearly not been done. This market was not about whether Garcia will be returned, only whether the court should order its return. The fact remains that the court would clearly prefer the outcome where Garcia was returned, and has stated this preference as much as it believes it can. Any situation where the Court ruled this way would have likely been ignored by the administration. I don’t think that the de facto reality of the Trump administration’s response should contravene the results of the market. Just because the government claims that it isn’t ignoring the ruling doesn’t mean that it isn’t ignoring it.
@Balasar I don't understand your reasoning here. "the court would clearly prefer the outcome where Garcia was returned, and has stated this preference as much as it believes it can" might be true, but it is completely different from "Supreme Court upholds lower courts and requires the return of Abrego Garcia"
Similarly, even an order explicitly to "ask for the return of the deported man" would be completely different from "requires the return of Abrego Garcia"
@jcb I think that in the counterfactual scenario where the court had released this exact order and Garcia was on a plane home the next day that we wouldn't be having this conversation. The administration has thrown out a wide variety of tortured arguments in order to dodge court rulings and toe right up to the line of willful defiance (in the case of lower courts, already exceeding it). Just because they have done this in this case as well doesn't mean that the ruling was a punt. If you believe otherwise, you are welcome to make a Manifold poll over the next day or two and if a majority disagree with my resolution then I will happily change it.
The ruling is not quite as clear as one might hope for resolving this market:
The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by The Chief Justice, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. 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. 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. 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.
So the government is still required to "facilitate" Garcia's return, but the court punted back to the lower court on whether the government is required to "effectuate" his return, that term apparently not being clear enough.
I don't think this ruling has resolved the issue of whether Garcia's actual return is required. If El Salvador doesn't feel like returning him, I think forcing the issue would go beyond "facilitating"; what's required of the government in such a case depends on the clarification of "effectuate" and whether that clarification holds up on appeal.
So I suggest that "Any sort of punt or technicality that does not largely resolve the issue" is the correct resolution.
@jcb I just took a stake so am officially biased, but I disagree with this interpretation. The lower court’s order “remains in effect but requires clarification”. This seems like upholding with a caveat to not overstep. It certainly seems to be being treated as requiring the government to act to secure his release by the lower court based on their follow up.
@Sketchy I think this bit indicates that while the lower court's order "remains in effect" for now, there's a possibility that it might be (partly) struck down after clarification.
The intended scope of the term “effectuate” [...] may exceed the District Court’s authority.