ORANGE COUNTY, Calif. – An Orange County photographer is speaking out after he was deported as he was heading to Texas to photograph a wedding.

What they’re saying:

“I was trying to do it the right way, the legal way and it just feels like they don’t care about that,” said Adan Caceres.

Caceres came to the United States under asylum in 2014, fleeing a violent El Salvador.

“My mom’s sister was murdered and she was thrown in front of our house. She also was abused sexually before they murdered her and then my brother and I were threatened by the gangs,” said Caceres.

He says he never received the deportation order that was issued in 2018 and only learned about it in 2023. He then started the process of reopening his case.

“I was paying my taxes. I’m a business owner, I’m a wedding photographer. I’m also married,” said Caceres.

In October, Caceres was going through security at John Wayne Airport, heading to a job in Texas, when he was detained. He says from Santa Ana, he was sent to the Adelanto Detention Center then one in El Paso, Texas where he says the conditions were inhumane.

“We’re not even asking ‘hey let us out’ we’re asking for water, we’re asking for us to be able to use the restroom, these are basic human rights,” said Caceres.

He says now that he’s back in the country he once fled, he’s most concerned about his wife back in Orange County.

“I was providing a lot of income for our household and now my wife has to take care of all of those things on her own; paying car insurance, the rent, all the bills,” said Caceres.

Caceres says he had no criminal history and feels he was on the path to citizenship when it was ripped away from him, leaving his future with his family uncertain.

“I don’t know if I’m going to see them. I don’t know when I’m going to see them,” said Caceres.

The other side:

FOX11 reached out to the Department of Homeland Security asking about Caceres’ case but had not heard back at the time this story aired. 

WASHINGTON – In a years-long Texas book banning case that’s seen rulings from multiple judges, the highest court in the nation has decided not to weigh in. 

It all started in 2021, when a community in a small county near Austin decided to rid their public library’s shelves of “inappropriate” literature. 

SCOTUS declines to rule

The latest:

The Supreme Court of the United States decided Monday they would not rule on an appeal in the Llano County case. Decisions by lower courts had previously allowed for books regarding topics like sex and social issues to be removed from the shelves. 

According to the court’s timeline of proceedings, they first received an application to file a petition in the case on July 24. Since this summer, the petition was filed, motions to extend were passed through, numerous briefs were submitted in support of the appeal, and finally, in November, the petition was distributed for conference. 

After nearly a month of no further actions, the next proceeding was a simple denial. 

Anti-censorship groups request action

What they’re saying:

Numerous groups and organizations advocating free speech and expression submitted briefs to the court in favor of the appeal.

One group was The National Coalition Against Censorship, whose conclusion reads in part as follows: 

“Allowing the Fifth Circuit’s decision to stand threatens to make public libraries a doctrinal oxymoron—institutions with a proud historical tradition of providing access to the widest possible range of ideas would become one of the only areas where the government could openly censor private viewpoints.”

Another group, PEN America, expressed a similar view in their brief:

“Library doors are open to all without regard to wealth, status, education, profession, or identity, and their collections run the gamut of expression. That extraordinary public service demands safeguards against official orthodoxy. Fortunately, the First Amendment has long offered such protection. This Court should reaffirm as much here.”

The removal of books from Llano County libraries

The backstory:

In 2021, a group of community members began working to have several books they deemed inappropriate removed from Llano County public library shelves.

A group of seven Llano County residents filed a federal lawsuit against the county judge, commissioners, library board members and the library systems director for restricting and banning books from the three-branch library system.

The lawsuit stated that the county judge, commissioners and library director removed several books off shelves, suspended access to digital library books, replaced the Llano County library board with community members in favor of book bans, halted new library book orders and allowed the library board to close its meetings to the public in a coordinated censorship campaign that violates the First Amendment and 14th Amendment.

In 2024, a divided panel from the Fifth Circuit ordered eight of the removed books returned.

Both the majority opinion of the 2024 panel and the dissenting opinion from Friday’s decision called the removal of the books a political decision.

What are the books?

The books at issue in the case include “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontent” by Isabel Wilkerson; “They Called Themselves the K.K.K: The Birth of an American Terrorist Group,” by Susan Campbell Bartoletti; “In the Night Kitchen” by Maurice Sendak; “It’s Perfectly Normal: Changing Bodies, Growing Up, Sex and Sexual Health” by Robie H. Harris; and “Being Jazz: My Life as a (Transgender) Teen” by Jazz Jennings.

Other titles include “Larry the Farting Leprechaun” by Jane Bexley and “My Butt is So Noisy!” by Dawn McMillan.

To the editor: Contributing writer Erwin Chemerinsky’s recent op-ed should be required reading for all who support our constitutional democracy (“The Supreme Court’s 3 terrible reasons for allowing Texas’ racially rigged map,” Dec. 5).

There are so many things wrong with the Supreme Court’s blocking of the lower court’s reasoned opinion that ruled the Texas redistricting map unconstitutional. As Chemerinsky points out, the three reasons given by the Supreme Court in its unsigned opinion are blatant sophistry and result in effectively making it impossible for anyone to challenge a legislature’s action in redistricting anytime in advance of a midterm congressional election.

What’s more, this decision comes from the court’s “shadow docket,” meaning it is rendered without briefing or oral argument — but nonetheless gives a green light to the challenged redistricting map for this upcoming election.

The rationale that a map drawn for purely partisan political purposes might be constitutionally permissible is stunning. In 2019, in Rucho vs. Common Cause, Chief Justice John Roberts (in upholding a redistricting map) wrote: “Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is ‘incompatible with democratic principles’ does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary.” But this is where we are.

James Stiven, Cardiff
This writer is a retired U.S. magistrate judge.

..

To the editor: Chemerinsky is outraged that Texas is allowed to redraw its congressional maps, which are designed to elect five more Republicans to the House of Representatives. Would it be proper to ban Texas from doing this after California has already found legal avenues to do something similar? I’m not sure how all states can be forced to draw districts that are reasonable and fair, but Chemerinsky seems to lament the gerrymandering practice in Texas without mentioning complaints when it happens in California.

David Waldowski, Laguna Woods

..

To the editor: Although Chemerinsky accurately describes the Supreme Court’s stated reasons for the decision, the actual rationale was probably much more cynical.

First, Texas racially rigged its election district maps to favor Trump in the midterms. Second, California rigged its own maps in response, but did it better by putting it to statewide vote. Lastly, the Texas stunt got challenged in court on solid constitutional grounds and looked like it might lose, so that the whole thing might backfire against our man President Trump. And, well, we can’t have that, can we?

Ronald Ellsworth, La Mesa