Liberal Supreme Court Justice Backs Trump Administration in Major Immigration Case
In a surprising move, one of the Supreme Court’s more liberal members has aligned with former President Donald Trump’s administration in an immigration-related ruling.
Justice Elena Kagan rejected a plea from four Mexican citizens seeking to halt their deportation so they could pursue an appeal.
“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,” a report stated.
The family fled from Guerrero, Mexico, in 2021, claiming threats from the Los Rojos cartel. According to their court documents, cartel members ordered them to abandon their home within 24 hours or face death.
As part of their legal filings, the family included incidents involving violence against other relatives, but an immigration judge denied their asylum claims.
The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the ruling in November 2023, and in February 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also affirmed the decision.
“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,” their attorney LeRoy George wrote in the petition submitted to the court.
Justice Kagan, acting independently, chose not to escalate the case to the full Supreme Court and denied the emergency appeal without providing a written explanation.
On Thursday, a Fox News legal analyst weighed in on a separate immigration-related controversy during an appearance on “Fox & Friends.” The analyst claimed a federal judge who attempted to hold Trump officials in contempt may have been humiliated by the Supreme Court’s intervention in the case.
Kerri Urbahn shared with host Brian Kilmeade her view that Chief Judge James Boasberg’s attempt to punish Trump-era officials over the deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an MS-13 gang member from El Salvador, appeared fueled by frustration.
“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,” Urbahn 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,” she added.
Urbahn questioned whether that statement had encouraged Judge Boasberg to take a strong stance. Regardless, she pointed out, the Supreme Court ultimately did not side with him.
“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,” she said.
“His argument is, even though the Supreme Court found” the way it did, “you should have obeyed this before they issued the order,” Urbahn continued. “The DoJ’s argument is you should have never issued this in the first place. This wasn’t your authority. It’s inherently invalid. The fact he is saying now I’m going to hold you in contempt however you can cure and it by the way that’s where it gets interesting, Brian.
“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 concluded.