Kagan Rules In Favor Of Trump Administration Regarding Deportation Case
One of the most liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of President Donald Trump’s administration in a recent deportation dispute.
Justice Elena Kagan denied an emergency application from four Mexican nationals who sought to halt their deportation so they could pursue an appeal, according to Fox News.
“The petitioners, Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa and their two sons, were ordered to report to immigration officials on Thursday. Their legal team argued they face cartel violence if returned to Mexico,” the outlet reported.
Court documents reveal the family left Guerrero, Mexico, in 2021 after being threatened by the Los Rojos cartel. “The petition stated that cartel members demanded the family vacate their home within 24 hours or be killed,” the report noted.
In their appeal, the family recounted past acts of cartel-related violence involving relatives. However, an immigration judge denied their request for relief.
The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the ruling in November 2023, with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals concurring in February 2025.
“Petitioners face imminent removal and have been directed to report to immigration office on 4/17/2025, despite credible and detailed testimony and documentary evidence showing they are targets of cartel violence due to their family ties and refusal to comply with extortion demands,” said attorney LeRoy George in the application submitted to the Supreme Court.
Justice Kagan opted to reject the request on her own, without referring the matter to the full Court, and issued no explanation for the denial.
Meanwhile, a legal analyst speaking to Fox News discussed a separate deportation case involving an MS-13 gang member and the actions of a federal judge.
Kerri Urbahn, appearing on “Fox & Friends” with Brian Kilmeade, commented on Chief Judge James Boasberg’s move to hold Trump-era officials in contempt for not complying with his order to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, from a high-security detention center back to the United States. Urbahn claimed Boasberg was likely “embarrassed” by the Supreme Court’s intervention in the case.
“So this is an interesting situation. You know, I’m not surprised we’re here because this judge seemed determined from the outset to hold him in contempt. Frankly, Brian, when I was reading the decision yesterday, I felt like it seemed a little desperate. I think the guy is embarrassed,” she said.
“He made this a very public thing for weeks. I can’t help but wonder if he thought the chief justice [John Roberts] was going to ultimately back him because, don’t forget, he had put out – the chief justice had put out that statement warning Trump and others, like, don’t criticize the judges. Let us handle things in the normal course,” Urbahn added.
“I don’t know if that emboldened Judge Boasberg,” she continued, but the Supreme Court “didn’t” back his order. “They vacated his order. Finding – this should have been heard in Texas. Not before you in D.C., Judge Boasberg but yet, to your point, is he still demanding that the government comply with the order.”
Urbahn went on to clarify the core legal argument: “His argument is, even though the Supreme Court found” the way it did, “you should have obeyed this before they issued the order,” she said. “The DoJ’s argument is you should have never issued this in the first place. This wasn’t your authority. It’s inherently invalid.”
She noted that Judge Boasberg proposed a way to resolve the contempt issue: compliance with what the Supreme Court had already directed. “The way he is saying they can get rid of this potential contempt situation is by complying with what the Supreme Court told them to do the tda members and other people deported on planes still need to have the process they would have had before they were removed which is going to be done in Texas via habeas petition where they challenge the removal. So it’s a little strange,” she said.
“He puts on this big show in this decision but, in fact, the remedy he is giving them is something they already have to do because the Supreme Court told them to,” Urbahn added. “And so, that’s why I think this is a little bit of a show. But, to your point, the significance of it saying well, you’re going to have to explain and we’re going to have to depose people is just why the Department of Justice is appealing and appealed it out of the gate.”