One of the Supreme Court’s most progressive Justices has aligned with President Donald Trump’s administration in a deportation dispute.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan rejected a petition from four Mexican nationals seeking to suspend their deportation orders to facilitate an appeal, according to Fox News.
“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.
“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,” LeRoy George, an attorney for the migrants, said in a petition to the court.
Kagan could have independently decided to retain the migrants in the United States or submitted the matter to the whole Supreme Court, opting for the former by refusing the appeal without commentary.
A legal commentator for Fox News stated during a Thursday morning episode that she believes the federal judge overseeing a case involving a deported MS-13 gang member felt “embarrassed” by a Supreme Court judgment that removed the case from his jurisdiction.
Kerri Urbahn said “Fox & Friends” co-host Brian Kilmeade that Chief Judge James Boasberg’s ruling to hold Trump administration officials in contempt for failing to send El Salvadoran citizen Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a high-security jail to the U.S. reflected a sense of desperation.
“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 began.
“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,” but the Supreme Court “didn’t” support him, she said. “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.”
WATCH:
“His argument is, even though the Supreme Court found” the way it did, “you should have obeyed this before they issued the order,” Urbahn explained. “The DoJ’s argument is you should have never issued this in the first place. This wasn’t your authority. It’s inherently invalid. The fact he is saying now I’m going to hold you in contempt however you can cure and it by the way that’s where it gets interesting, Brian.
