A Justice known for their liberal stance on the Supreme Court has aligned with President Donald Trump’s administration in a case concerning deportation.
Justice Elena Kagan of the Supreme Court rejected a plea from four Mexican nationals seeking to halt their deportation orders in order to pursue an appeal. The individuals, Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa, and their two sons, were instructed to check in with immigration authorities on Thursday. Their attorneys contended that returning to Mexico would expose them to cartel-related violence, according to the report..
As per their legal submission, the family escaped from Guerrero, Mexico, in 2021 due to threats from the Los Rojos drug cartel. The petition indicated that cartel members ordered the family to leave their residence within 24 hours or face death.
Furthermore, the family provided accounts of violence inflicted upon other relatives in their appeal, which was rejected by an immigration judge. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld this ruling in November 2023, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed the decision in February 2025.
Petitioners are facing imminent deportation and have been instructed to report to the immigration office on April 17, 2025, despite having provided credible and comprehensive testimony along with documentary evidence indicating that they are victims of cartel violence due to their familial connections and their refusal to acquiesce to extortion demands,” stated LeRoy George, an attorney representing the migrants, in a court petition.
Kagan had the option to act independently to allow the migrants to remain in the United States or to refer the matter to the entire Supreme Court, ultimately opting for the former by denying the appeal without further comment.
A legal expert from Fox News remarked during a Thursday morning segment that she believes the federal judge involved in the case of a deported MS-13 gang member felt “embarrassed” by a Supreme Court decision that removed the case from his jurisdiction.
Kerri Urbahn also informed “Fox & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade that Chief Judge James Boasberg’s ruling to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for failing to return El Salvadoran citizen Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a high-security prison to the U.S. appeared to be an act of desperation.
This presents a noteworthy scenario. It is not surprising that we find ourselves in this position, as the judge appeared resolute from the beginning in his intention to hold him in contempt. Frankly, Brian, upon reviewing the decision yesterday, it struck me as somewhat desperate.
I believe the individual is experiencing embarrassment,” Urbahn commenced. “He has made this a highly public matter for several weeks. I cannot help but speculate whether he anticipated that Chief Justice John Roberts would ultimately support him, considering that the Chief Justice had issued a statement cautioning Trump and others against criticizing the judges, urging them to allow the judicial process to unfold normally,” she elaborated.
“I am uncertain if this gave Judge Boasberg a sense of empowerment, but the Supreme Court did not endorse his actions. They annulled his order, determining that this matter should have been addressed in Texas, not before you in D.C., Judge Boasberg. Nevertheless, to your earlier point, he continues to insist that the government adhere to the order.”
Urbahn articulated that his argument is that, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, compliance was expected prior to the issuance of the order. The Department of Justice contends that the initial issuance was beyond your authority and thus fundamentally invalid. He further stated that while he intends to hold you in contempt, there is a possibility to rectify the situation, which adds an intriguing dimension, Brian.
He suggests that the resolution to this potential contempt issue lies in adhering to the Supreme Court’s directives. The TDA members and others who were deported must undergo the process they would have experienced prior to their removal, which will be facilitated in Texas through a habeas petition to contest the removal. This situation is somewhat unusual, she noted.
