An order recently striking down an effort by President Donald Trump's administration to keep a man incarcerated in a foreign country without due process is piquing the interest of one legal expert -- who argues it may have been written for a very specific audience.

During a Thursday segment with CNN host John Berman, legal analyst Elie Honig — a former federal prosecutor — broke down the seven-page opinion issued by U.S. Circuit Court Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III (an appointee of former President Ronald Reagan), which was joined by two other judges on a panel from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

That opinion denied the Trump administration Department of Justice's request for a stay on an order issued by U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in the case of mistakenly deported Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia, along with his request for a writ of mandamus (an order instructing a government official to perform a specific duty).Honig argued that Wilkinson — who he noted was a "widely respected conservative — was also writing his opinion "for the U.S. Supreme Court," as he is "one of the very few appellate court judges in the country who has real sway with the Justice Scalias, Alitos, Gorsuchs, et cetera," referencing three of the most conservative members of the High Court. He characterized Wilkinson's seven-page opinion as "a plea to rationality."

"I think he's anticipating, probably correctly, that this case will, one way or another, wind up at the Supreme Court," Honig said. "And I think he's inviting, exhorting the Supreme Court, 'we need you to get more firm and more specific here. The stakes are too high.'"

Last week, the Supreme Court handed down a 9-0 decision telling the administration it had to "facilitate" the return of Abrego Garcia, though Trump has yet to do so. Honig posited that Wilkinson is aiming to convince the six-member conservative supermajority on the Court by way of acknowledging their actions as the lodestar by which lower court judges like him base their decisions. And in doing so, Honig argued that SCOTUS could be pigeonholed into holding fast and adding teeth to their prior order.

"He acknowledges in the short term, the executive branch will do what it will do. And there's not a whole heck of a lot we, the courts, can do about it. We rely on the power of words, the power of suasion. but ultimately, the courts and the law will rule. when history looks back at this, it will not look fondly on you. executive branch, if you continue to defy the law," Honig said. "I think that's a very powerful way that he says it."

Watch below:

Reprinted with permission from Alternet