Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sides With Trump Admin In Key Case

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, a member of the court’s liberal wing, denied an emergency request from four Mexican nationals seeking to delay their deportation, allowing the removal orders to remain in effect despite the family’s claims that they faced cartel violence.

The application concerned Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa and their two sons. Their case had already passed through an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before they sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court.

“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 family also described violence involving relatives in support of its effort to avoid removal. An immigration judge rejected their claim, however, and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed that decision in November 2023.

The Ninth Circuit upheld the outcome in February 2025.

Attorney LeRoy George subsequently asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that the family faced immediate danger if immigration authorities carried out the deportations.

“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,” George wrote in the petition.

Kagan denied the request without comment. She handled the application herself rather than referring it to the full court.

Her decision left the deportation orders undisturbed. Because she offered no explanation, it did not establish her reasoning or amount to a broader endorsement of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies.

The family’s 2025 application is separate from a continuing Supreme Court fight over the administration’s use of third-country deportations—a policy that has become an important part of Trump’s effort to enforce final removal orders.

In that dispute, the Justice Department returned to the court last week seeking emergency permission to proceed with removals while litigation continues over the procedures required before migrants can be sent somewhere other than their home country.

The government wants the justices to suspend lower-court rulings requiring the Department of Homeland Security to provide effective notice and a meaningful opportunity for migrants to raise fears of persecution or torture in the proposed destination.

The application, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., was filed Thursday and assigned to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency matters arising from the First Circuit.

Jackson directed the migrants challenging the policy to submit a response by 4 p.m. Monday, September 28.

The administration has increasingly relied on third-country removals in cases involving migrants with final deportation orders who cannot be returned to their countries of origin. Officials view the policy as an important enforcement option when repatriation to a home country is unavailable.

The legal dispute concerns what additional process must occur before the government selects and carries out removal to another destination.

An earlier phase of the case produced a victory for the administration when the Supreme Court agreed in May to pause an injunction restricting third-country deportations without advance notice.

The court divided 6-3. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissented—illustrating that Kagan’s decision in the Mexican family’s individual case did not translate into support for the administration in the broader policy dispute.

The underlying class-action lawsuit has been overseen by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston. It concerns removals to countries including South Sudan, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala, along with other destinations reportedly considered by the administration.

Lawyers representing the migrants urged the Supreme Court to preserve Murphy’s restrictions, including a requirement that affected individuals remain in American custody pending further review.

Murphy required an opportunity for a “reasonable fear interview,” through which migrants could explain concerns that they would face persecution or torture in the receiving country.

The judge maintained that his order did not prohibit the administration from “executing removal orders to third countries.”

Instead, he said it “simply requires” officials to “comply with the law when carrying out” those deportations. His rulings addressed the constitutional and legal protections he concluded applied to the government’s procedures, including notice of a newly selected destination.

The administration has argued that the restrictions obstruct enforcement against people who already have final removal orders. But the existence of those orders and the procedures governing removal to a particular third country are distinct issues at the center of the litigation.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that Murphy’s ruling prevented officials from deporting “some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens.”

The dispute included migrants designated for removal to South Sudan who were held in U.S. custody at a military base in Djibouti. Under the requirements being challenged, they had to receive an opportunity to explain fears of persecution or torture before transfer to South Sudanese custody.

White House officials have accused judges imposing immigration restrictions of acting as “activist” opponents of the president’s agenda. The administration has also challenged the scope of the process demanded by the migrants and the lower courts.

The latest emergency application puts that conflict back before the justices: how to enforce final deportation orders while resolving disputes over the safeguards required for removal to a third country.