In a surprising move, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan—considered one of the Court’s more liberal members—denied a last-minute appeal from a Mexican family facing deportation under the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The case involved Fabian Lagunas Espinoza, Maria Angelica Flores Ulloa, and their two sons, who fled Guerrero, Mexico in 2021 after receiving threats from the Los Rojos drug cartel. Despite presenting evidence of violence against relatives and credible threats to their own safety, the family’s asylum claims were denied at every level of the immigration system.
The family’s legal team, led by attorney LeRoy George, argued that deporting them back to cartel-controlled territory amounted to a death sentence. Their plea to the Supreme Court was urgent: they were ordered to report to immigration officials by April 17, 2025. Justice Kagan, acting independently, rejected the request without referring it to the full Court and issued no public explanation for her decision—a standard practice for emergency appeals but still notable given her typical ideological leanings.
This decision came amid broader tensions between federal courts and immigration enforcement agencies. In a separate case involving an MS-13 gang member deported under similar circumstances, controversy erupted when a federal judge attempted to force the Trump administration to return the deportee to the U.S. Judge James Boasberg of Washington, D.C., ordered the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a Salvadoran prison, claiming the government violated his order. However, the Supreme Court later overruled Boasberg, deciding the case should have been heard in Texas, not D.C.
Legal analyst Kerri Urbahn weighed in on the situation during a segment on Fox & Friends, suggesting that Judge Boasberg’s actions reflected desperation and possibly embarrassment. She argued that the judge may have expected support from Chief Justice John Roberts, given Roberts’ earlier statements warning political leaders against criticizing federal judges. Instead, the Supreme Court’s ruling effectively stripped Boasberg of jurisdiction and invalidated his contempt threat.
Despite the Supreme Court’s decision, Boasberg has continued to demand compliance with his original order. This has created legal confusion, with the Department of Justice arguing that the order was invalid from the start. Urbahn noted that while Boasberg insists on procedural justice, the ruling makes clear that any further legal challenges must proceed through Texas courts.
Together, these cases highlight the ongoing conflict between immigration enforcement, judicial authority, and the Supreme Court’s role in shaping federal deportation policy. They also underscore the political and legal complexity surrounding high-profile immigration cases in a polarized environment.
