One of the Supreme Court’s most liberal justices has sided with the administration of President Donald Trump in a deportation case. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denied a request from four Mexican nationals to block their deportation orders so they could file an appeal.
“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 shared details of violence against other family members in their appeal, which an immigration judge denied.
The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision in November 2023, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals validated the decision in February 2025.
“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,” LeRoy George, an attorney for the migrants, said in a petition to the court.
Kagan could have acted alone to keep the migrants in the United States or referred the case to the entire Supreme Court, choosing the former in denying the appeal without comment.
Trump also picked up another immigration win at the Supreme Court this week.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision Wednesday directing federal appeals courts to defer to immigration judges when reviewing asylum rulings.
The decision strengthens the executive branch’s authority in immigration matters and comes as the Trump administration continues its deportation push.
Advertisement
Jackson wrote that federal courts must apply a “substantial evidence” standard when reviewing an immigration judge’s findings about whether a migrant would face persecution if deported, Fox News reported.
She said the law requires courts to uphold those findings unless the evidence clearly compels a different conclusion.
“The agency’s determination … is generally ‘conclusive unless any reasonable adjudicator would be compelled to conclude to the contrary,’” Jackson wrote.
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, migrants who enter the United States without documentation can apply for asylum.
Immigration judges, who work within the Department of Justice, evaluate those claims and determine whether asylum should be granted or whether the migrant should be deported.
Migrants can appeal those decisions to the Board of Immigration Appeals. The board is also part of the executive branch. From there, cases can be appealed to federal circuit courts and ultimately to the Supreme Court.
The ruling in Urias Orellana v. Bondi held that courts must largely defer to immigration judges’ findings about whether a migrant would face persecution if removed from the United States.
The case involved Douglas Humberto Urias Orellana and his wife and child, who are citizens of El Salvador.
The family entered the United States illegally in 2021 and applied for asylum. An immigration judge denied their asylum claim and ordered their removal.
The Board of Immigration Appeals and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit both upheld the decision.
Urias Orellana argued that a sicario, or hitman, had targeted him since 2016 after shooting two of his half-brothers and threatening to kill other family members.
The immigration judge found his testimony credible. However, the judge determined that the incidents described did not establish a valid fear of future persecution.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the 1st Circuit had properly examined the immigration judge’s ruling.
The justices concluded that the appeals court correctly relied on the immigration judge’s findings.
