Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sides With Trump Admin In Key Case
In a surprising break from the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc, Justice Elena Kagan has sided with the Trump administration in a high-stakes immigration case, refusing to halt the deportation of a Mexican family claiming they would face cartel violence if returned home.
Kagan denied the emergency request from Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa, and their two sons — a decision she was empowered to make unilaterally or refer to the full Court. She chose the former, rejecting the appeal without comment.
According to court filings, the family fled Guerrero, Mexico, in 2021 after receiving explicit death threats from the Los Rojos cartel.
“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 report said.
“According to their court filing, the family fled Guerrero, Mexico, in 2021, after being threatened by the Los Rojos drug cartel. The petition stated that cartel members demanded the family vacate their home within 24 hours or be killed,” it added.
Their case had already been rejected by an immigration judge, upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals in November 2023, and later affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 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,” their attorney, LeRoy George, told the Court.
Kagan’s decision allows the Trump administration’s deportation order to move forward — a notable development given the Court’s ideological landscape and the Biden-era protections progressives had expected to remain embedded in the system.
Meanwhile, another immigration case is generating headlines after the Supreme Court intervened to block a federal judge’s attempt to control the handling of an MS-13 gang member’s deportation.
Fox News legal analyst Kerri Urbahn told “Fox & Friends” that U.S. District Judge James Boasberg — an Obama appointee and current chief judge of the D.C. District Court — appeared “embarrassed” after the Supreme Court abruptly vacated his order demanding that El Salvadoran gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia be returned from a high-security facility overseas.
“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 continued.
“I don’t know if that emboldened Judge Boasberg,” she said, but ultimately the Supreme Court “didn’t” support 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.”
Urbahn noted that Boasberg now argues the administration should have obeyed his ruling before the Supreme Court stepped in.
“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.
But the Department of Justice has pushed back, asserting that Boasberg’s directive was invalid from the start: “The DoJ’s argument is you should have never issued this in the first place. This wasn’t your authority. It’s inherently invalid,” Urbahn explained.
She added that the judge’s new offer to “cure” the contempt issue only adds confusion.
“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.
For the Trump administration, these cases highlight the ongoing judicial tug-of-war over immigration enforcement — and underscore how even some of the Court’s most liberal justices are refusing to stand in the way.