Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sides With Trump Admin In Key Case

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.

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.

U.S.–CANADA WATER TENSIONS? OTTAWA SIGNALS SOVEREIGNTY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE…

Tensions between Washington and Ottawa have taken an extraordinary turn — not over trade, defense, or tariffs — but over water.

Amid deepening drought conditions across the American West, President Donald Trump raised the idea that Canada’s vast freshwater reserves could help alleviate shortages in states like California, Arizona, and Nevada. While he stopped short of issuing a formal demand, his remarks suggesting Canada’s water could act like a “large faucet” for the United States ignited immediate controversy.

Ottawa’s response was swift — and unequivocal.

Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected any suggestion that Canada’s freshwater resources are up for negotiation, declaring them a sovereign public trust and “not a commodity to be controlled or transferred under external pressure.”

The exchange has exposed a deeper fault line in North American relations: how nations respond to resource scarcity in an era of climate stress.

The Drought Reality in the American West

The American Southwest is facing sustained water pressure:

The Colorado River system is under historic strain.
Lake Mead and Lake Powell remain below long-term averages.
Rapid population growth continues in water-stressed regions.
Agriculture in California and Arizona is increasingly vulnerable.

Cities including Phoenix, Las Vegas, and Los Angeles are investing heavily in conservation, wastewater recycling, and desalination. But long-term projections show continued volatility as climate change alters snowpack and runoff patterns.

In that context, Trump’s comments about Canada’s freshwater abundance resonated with some U.S. observers who see continental resource sharing as pragmatic.

What Canada Actually Controls

Canada holds roughly 20% of the world’s freshwater resources — though much of that is locked in glaciers, remote watersheds, or flows northward away from population centers.

The two countries already cooperate extensively on shared water systems, most notably through:

The Great Lakes agreements
The Boundary Waters Treaty (1909)
The Columbia River Treaty

British Columbia recently confirmed that discussions regarding the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty are under review by the U.S. administration — though no formal collapse of agreements has occurred.

What has not happened is any formal U.S. demand for ownership or control of Canadian water infrastructure. The dispute remains rhetorical — but politically charged.

Why Ottawa Drew a Hard Line

Carney’s refusal reflects longstanding Canadian policy.

Canada has historically resisted:

Bulk freshwater export proposals
Cross-border water diversion megaprojects
Treating freshwater as a tradable commodity under trade agreements

The concern in Ottawa is not short-term sales — it’s legal precedent. If water were formally commodified, it could fall under international trade dispute mechanisms, potentially limiting Canada’s ability to regulate its own supply in the future.

Canadian leaders across party lines have traditionally viewed water sovereignty as non-negotiable.

Carney framed the issue in environmental and strategic terms:

Climate volatility affects Canadian watersheds too.
Glacial melt is accelerating in Western Canada.
Long-term ecological impacts of diversion are unpredictable.

The argument is not simply nationalist — it’s precautionary.

The Infrastructure Reality

Large-scale water transfers from Canada to the U.S. Southwest would require:

Thousands of miles of pipeline or canal systems
Massive pumping energy requirements
Multibillion-dollar capital investment
Complex environmental approvals

No such project is currently under construction or formally approved.

Policy think tanks have studied water diversion concepts for decades, but they remain economically and politically contentious.

The Philosophical Divide

At the heart of the controversy is a deeper debate:

Is water an economic asset that can be traded like oil or gas?
Or is it a protected public trust insulated from market forces?

In the United States, market-based allocation of water resources is more common. In Canada, water governance is more closely tied to public stewardship and provincial authority.

That philosophical difference is now colliding with climate pressure.

What This Means Geopolitically

Despite heated rhetoric, this is not a military standoff. It is a policy divergence amplified by climate stress.

Still, the symbolism matters.

For decades, U.S.–Canada relations have been defined by:

Deep integration
Predictable cooperation
Quiet dispute resolution

Public disagreement over water — a resource fundamental to survival — marks a notable escalation in tone, if not yet in formal policy.

Experts warn that as climate change intensifies:

Water diplomacy will become as important as energy diplomacy.
Resource security will increasingly shape alliances.
Infrastructure vulnerability will redefine leverage.

The Path Forward

Realistically, any future cooperation would likely take the form of:

Joint conservation initiatives
Shared basin management
Technology exchange (desalination, recycling, storage)
Climate adaptation coordination

Large-scale bulk water transfers remain politically radioactive in Canada and economically complex in the United States.

For now, Carney’s message is clear:

Canada’s water is not for sale.

And Washington has not formally moved beyond rhetoric.

The Bigger Picture

This episode highlights a larger truth:

In the 21st century, water — not oil — may become the defining strategic resource.

But unlike oil, water is immovable geography. It is tied to ecosystems, borders, and long-term sustainability.

How the United States and Canada manage water cooperation in a warming climate will signal whether resource stress leads to confrontation — or innovation.