It is reasonable to suppose that former Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman sweated out May and June, and not because of the heat.

The U.S. Supreme Court, which has been sitting on his case since he appealed to it last August, had until July 5 — the final day of its 2010 term — to rule on that appeal.

The country’s highest court had two basic choices: It could uphold Siegelman’s conviction and assure his sooner-than-later return to prison; or take one of several possible measures, each of which would prolong that return and possibly keep him free for good.

The Supreme Court chose one of the latter options. It didn’t agree to hear Siegelman’s appeal, which would have been his best-case scenario. Rather, the court issued a brief order directing the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its March 2009 decision upholding Siegelman’s conviction (for reasons shortly to be explained.)

Siegelman and his lawyers hailed it as a great victory. Considering the alternative — a fast-track back to prison — Siegelman had every right to be elated. But even he conceded that he’d won a battle, not the war. So what, ultimately, does the ruling mean for Siegelman and his co-defendant, former HealthSouth chairman Richard Scrushy?

This is a complicated case with a complicated past and it’s not getting any simpler. I can’t claim to understand it all, but hopefully I can provide some clarity and explain why I believe — am in fact pretty certain — that the decision merely delays the inevitable. In other words, that Siegelman will return to prison.

Read the rest of this column in the July 14 Daphne Bulletin.