Liberal Justice Sides with Trump Administration in High-Stakes Deportation Case
In a surprising move, one of the Supreme Court’s most liberal members, Justice Elena Kagan, sided with the Trump administration by rejecting a last-minute plea from a Mexican family seeking to delay deportation.
The petitioners—Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa, and their two sons—sought an emergency stay to remain in the U.S. and challenge their deportation, citing grave threats from cartel violence if returned to Mexico. According to court documents, the family fled Guerrero in 2021 after receiving a chilling ultimatum from the violent Los Rojos drug cartel: leave their home within 24 hours or face death.
Despite providing detailed testimony and documentation of threats and past violence against relatives, an immigration judge denied their asylum request. The Board of Immigration Appeals upheld the ruling in November 2023, and the Ninth Circuit reaffirmed it in February 2025. With deportation imminent, the family turned to the Supreme Court for relief.
Attorney LeRoy George, representing the family, warned in his petition that they faced “imminent removal” despite compelling evidence of cartel targeting due to their family ties and resistance to extortion.
Justice Kagan, acting alone, declined the emergency appeal without comment, effectively greenlighting the deportation. She could have referred the case to the full court but chose not to intervene.
Meanwhile, legal fireworks erupted in another immigration-related case involving MS-13 gang member Kilmar Abrego Garcia. A Fox News legal analyst, Kerri Urbahn, criticized U.S. District Chief Judge James Boasberg after the Supreme Court overturned his decision to hold Trump officials in contempt for deporting Garcia against his orders.
“This was a public power play, and it backfired,” Urbahn said on Fox & Friends. “I think he thought Chief Justice Roberts would back him, especially after Roberts warned against criticizing judges. But the Supreme Court didn’t support him—they vacated the order and said the case should be heard in Texas, not D.C.”
She called Boasberg’s actions “desperate,” suggesting he may have overstepped his authority. “Even now, he’s saying the government should’ve obeyed his ruling before the Supreme Court intervened. The DOJ argues his order was invalid from the start.”
As legal battles continue to unfold around immigration policy and executive power, these two high-profile cases underscore the deep tensions between the judiciary and the Trump-era enforcement agenda—tensions that now include unlikely alliances and surprising rebukes.
