It was worded that way to give plausible deniability when it was inevitably interpreted in bad faith

I don't believe it will go back to SCOTUS for them to issue a less ambiguous ruling. The ruling was intentionally ambiguous as to allow Trump the wiggle room to not have to address it. It's better to give him a way to weasel out than to actually put the "checks and balances" to the test and reveal the entire system as flawed/fraudulent.

It doesn't necessarily matter if it's a bad faith interpretation, it's the interpretation currently in action. If it wasn't in action, Garcia would already be on his way back to the United States. This was discussed as a distinct possibility when the ruling was initially announced due to the difference in definition between facilitate and effectuate, before the Trump administration took any actions, or in this case, a lack of action to repatriate Garcia.

Lawyers don't participate in good faith, their responsibility is to secure the best outcome for their client within the constraints of the legal system. Trump's legal team will have read the ruling this way, because it gives them an obvious out here, as you have pointed out. It doesn't matter to them if it's a bad faith interpretation, as long as it's an interpretation that can be put into action. The second paragraph in my original comment is not an interpretation in any way, it's a direct quote from the ruling.

Just to make it clear I do not agree with any of this, I detest it. But this is what is happening currently, I think any idea of some kind of grand Trump - supreme court showdown and constitutional crisis is overblown. For some reason the United States have decided to make their supreme court a partisan institution, and the majority of current judges in the court are Republican nominees. If the court was non partisan, then the chances of such a showdown would be much greater.