The Trump administration is in the middle of a very hot fight with regard to a deported Salvadoran migrant, Kilmar Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia, an illegal immigrant, had a deportation order placed on him. Then there was a withholding order that suggested he could not be sent back to El Salvador because Abrego Garcia claimed he feared for his life, that he would be killed in El Salvador because he’s a Salvadoran migrant with possible gang ties.

The court said the executive branch of the United States government had good cause to believe that Abrego Garcia might be a member of MS-13, a gang that President Trump has declared a terrorist organization.

Therefore, due to the withholding order, Abrego Garcia was not supposed to be on that plane, being deported back to El Salvador.

On April 4, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland directed the government to “facilitate and effectuate the return [of Abrego Garcia] to the United States.”

The Trump administration immediately filed an application to vacate the order.

The Supreme Court then ruled that the district court had the power to say that the United States government ought to “facilitate” his return to the United States, but they didn’t define the term “facilitate.” The Supreme Court order stated:

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 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.

If that sounds vague, that’s because it’s incredibly vague. The government, under the Supreme Court order, apparently has a duty to “facilitate” his release from custody. But how exactly it’s effectuated, how that doesn’t infringe on the executive branch’s ability to perform deportations, is unclear.

That left the door open for the administration to claim, “When you say we need to ‘facilitate,’ we asked the Salvadorans and they said, ’No.’ So, I guess that’s us ‘facilitating.’”

The opposite case would be to basically demand that the Salvadoran government return this person to the United States, where he might get deported again.

WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show

Things are getting very hot because the case has been remanded back to the district court for clarification. That very often happens. The higher court will say that a lower court needs to look at a case again and clarify what exactly it meant before the Supreme Court decides whether it was right or whether it was wrong.

Xinis has now called for the testimony of Trump administration officials who work for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security, and the State Department.

Many people across the political spectrum are saying Abrego Garcia deserves due process. And if you do the process wrong, and the court says you did the process wrong, you do actually have to facilitate his release back to the United States, not into the general population, but back to the authorities of the United States for more due process so they can check the boxes. Then the guy can be deported again.

Vice President Vance is taking the position that the administration is totally right not to facilitate due process in this particular case, essentially due to hardship.

Two things can be true at the same time: The Federal government should deport anybody who’s connected with MS-13, anybody who does not have American citizenship, who’s engaged in sympathy for anti-American views, or engages in action that is anti-American.

At the same time, there should be due process. Because if due process can be curbed for noncitizens, then due process could conceivably be curbed for citizens as well.

The question here is whether this legal fight is the fight that the administration wants to have.

It would be easy to tell the Salvadoran president to return Abrego Garcia, give him his day in court, and ship him out again. But the administration and the entire political Right have been conditioned to take the view that even admitting a mistake or doing a course-correction is a sign of weakness. That makes sense because the legacy media are willing to attack the Trump administration on any basis.

But sometimes it is better to just do the quick and easy thing and then move on to the actual priorities. In this case, it’s vital because with regard to immigration, there are important priorities.

The administration can take a legally dicey position and a politically popular position at the same time. Those two things can live in perfect harmony. Legally dicey and politically popular are constant aspects of many of the policy decisions made by leaders on both sides.

It’s a political winner for the Trump administration to say, “We want to deport illegal immigrants,” and force the Democrats into the position of defending illegal alien gang members or suspected gang members. That is a politically winning position.

But if you’re setting up a precedent where you actually want to get things done, you should be doing things the right way because it’s faster and easier to do it the right way than it is to do it the wrong way and then fight it out in the courts every step of the way.

You can win legally. You can do the right legal thing, which continues to give people the assurance that due process is carried out, gives the courts the assurance that due process is carried out, and also win the political fight.

One of the reasons I say the Trump administration should get out of its own way is that, legally, more pressing issues are occurring on the immigration front.

According to The Washington Post, “The Trump administration is using personal data normally protected from dissemination to find undocumented immigrants where they work, study and live, often with the goal of removing them from their housing and the workforce.”

This is good and necessary. Those are the big battles the Trump administration needs to win.

Fighting the due process considerations for Abrego Garcia should not take precedence over the rest of the Trump agenda on immigration.