In an unexpected twist, a liberal Supreme Court justice has sided with the Trump administration in a significant deportation case that has captured national attention.
Justice Elena Kagan, who is known for her progressive views, recently rejected a request from four Mexican nationals, including a family seeking to halt their deportation orders in hopes of pursuing further legal action. The petitioners—Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa, and their two children—were instructed to report to immigration authorities last Thursday. Their legal team argued that returning to Mexico would expose them to grave dangers related to cartel violence.
According to their legal filings, the family fled their home in Guerrero, Mexico, in 2021 after receiving threats from the Los Rojos drug cartel. The cartel reportedly demanded that they leave their home within 24 hours or face death. In addition to their claims, the family provided documentation and testimonies about the violent treatment of other relatives at the hands of the cartel, which formed the basis of their appeal.
However, their requests were denied. An immigration judge rejected the appeal, and the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the ruling in November 2023. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also supported this decision in February 2025.
Despite presenting detailed evidence of the threats they faced, the family was ordered to check in with immigration authorities, facing an imminent deportation. Their attorney, LeRoy George, emphasized in a court petition that the family’s return to Mexico would likely result in more violence due to their refusal to comply with cartel demands.
Justice Kagan, who had the option to either act independently to delay the deportation or refer the matter to the full Supreme Court, chose the latter by denying the appeal without further comment.
Meanwhile, on a separate legal front, a Fox News legal expert shed light on the broader implications of Supreme Court decisions. Kerri Urbahn discussed a ruling involving a deported MS-13 gang member, noting that a federal judge appeared “embarrassed” by the Supreme Court’s decision to strip him of jurisdiction over the case. Urbahn suggested that the ruling might have been driven by a sense of frustration or desperation from Judge James Boasberg, who had previously held Trump administration officials in contempt for not returning a deported individual from a high-security facility.
Urbahn speculated that Judge Boasberg might have expected support from Chief Justice John Roberts, who had previously urged the administration to respect the judicial process. However, the Supreme Court ultimately invalidated Boasberg’s order, reaffirming that the matter should have been handled in Texas.
While the debate over these legal developments continues, one thing is clear: the complex intersection of immigration law and judicial power remains a hotly contested issue with far-reaching consequences.
