Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sides With Trump Admin In Key Case

In a development that may surprise many court watchers, one of the Supreme Court’s most liberal members sided with the Trump administration in a key deportation dispute, declining to halt the removal of a Mexican family facing expulsion from the United States.

Elena Kagan, an associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, rejected an emergency request from four Mexican nationals who sought to pause their deportation orders while pursuing an appeal. The case placed the justices at the center of the ongoing immigration enforcement efforts carried out under President Donald J. Trump during his second term in office.

“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 said.

The migrants’ appeal described alleged violence involving other relatives, claiming the threats justified asylum protection. However, an immigration judge reviewed the evidence and rejected their claim, determining that it did not meet the legal threshold required to remain in the United States.

The decision was later upheld by the Board of Immigration Appeals in November 2023. In February 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit also affirmed the ruling, leaving the family facing imminent removal.

“Petitioners face imminent removal and have been directed to report to the 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,” LeRoy George, an attorney for the migrants, said in a petition to the court.

Kagan had the authority to either issue a temporary stay herself or refer the matter to the full Supreme Court. Instead, she chose to deny the request outright without issuing any written explanation.

The decision represents another legal victory for the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement agenda, which has prioritized restoring stricter border and asylum standards.

The administration secured an additional win at the Supreme Court this week in a separate immigration case, this time through a unanimous ruling written by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In that decision, the Court instructed federal appeals courts to give greater deference to immigration judges when reviewing asylum determinations. The ruling reinforces the executive branch’s authority over immigration enforcement as the administration continues to push forward with deportations of individuals whose claims for asylum have been denied.

Jackson explained that appellate courts must apply a “substantial evidence” standard when reviewing an immigration judge’s conclusions about whether a migrant would face persecution if deported, according to Fox News.

She said the law requires courts to uphold those findings unless the evidence clearly compels a different conclusion.

“The agency’s determination … is generally ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,’” Jackson wrote.

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, migrants who enter the United States without documentation can apply for asylum if they demonstrate a credible fear of persecution in their home country.

Immigration judges operating within the U.S. Department of Justice review those claims and determine whether the applicant qualifies for protection or should be removed from the country.

If denied, migrants can appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and afterward to federal circuit courts, before ultimately seeking review by the Supreme Court.

The ruling came in the case Urias Orellana v. Bondi, which centered on Douglas Humberto Urias Orellana and his family, citizens of El Salvador.

The family entered the United States illegally in 2021 and later applied for asylum. An immigration judge denied their request and ordered their removal from the country.

Both the Board of Immigration Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld that ruling.

Urias Orellana argued that a sicario, or hitman, had targeted him beginning in 2016 after shooting two of his half-brothers and issuing threats against other family members.

While the immigration judge found his testimony credible, the judge ultimately determined that the incidents described did not establish a legally sufficient fear of future persecution that would justify asylum.

The Supreme Court reviewed whether the First Circuit properly evaluated the lower court’s ruling and ultimately concluded that the appeals court correctly relied on the immigration judge’s findings.

Taken together, the decisions represent a significant reinforcement of immigration courts’ authority and underscore the Supreme Court’s willingness to allow the Trump administration’s enforcement policies to proceed without judicial interference.