Troubled Lawsuit Over Unlawful Immigrant Kids Expulsions Highlights Administration Incompetence
Town Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, on call over the holiday weekend, upended an attempt by the Trump administration to send more than 600 lone Guatemalan children back to their homeland. This sudden administrative flurry occurred mere moments after advocacy groups had filed a lawsuit questioning the unnamed deportations. Amid signs that the children were already being readied for the trip, Sooknanan rearranged a hearing to try to halt the removal attempts. Decidedly, she commanded an instantaneous end to any attempts to relocate or send back any child addressed in the lawsuit, which was brought forward by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).
The lawsuit encompasses an alleged group of all Guatemalan underage immigrants in federal care as of the end of August, who do not have finalized removal orders. According to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, as of August 2025, there are close to 2,000 such children in the custody of Health and Human Services. A large percentage of these come from Central American nations like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. The Trump administration had been steadily increasing welfare checks on these child immigrants across the country and issuing more enforcement measures like subjecting these children to expedited departure proceedings.
Activists for immigrants have been increasingly alarmed by these actions. There’s a universal agreement that unaccompanied children fall into a sensitive subclass that necessitates safeguarding. This lawsuit raises grave issues concerning the treatment of such prone migrant children and how the law fails to shield them. The significant protections granted by the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which call for due process and block expedited removal, are being put to the test for unaccompanied minors from non-neighboring countries.
This case also draws attention to disturbing actions suggestive of bigotry, absence of legal representation, and potential contravention of the Fifth Amendment. After being made aware that children from Guatemala were already being directed towards removal, Sooknanan issued an order. The government was told to stop all movements, and it was confirmed that the individuals involved did not have valid orders for removal, despite being in the custody of the ORR.
In the hearing that followed, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign confessed that at least one flight may have left but had since returned. He reassured that all the children implicated in the lawsuit are still in the USA, and no further flights would be taking off pursuant to the ruling of the court. However, attorneys for the children claimed that several remained on aircrafts, parked in Harlingen and El Paso, Texas.
According to the NILC’s lawsuit, the Trump administration was covertly coordinating with the Guatemalan administration to repatriate over 600 minors with no legal hearings. This, they arguen, breaches federal laws designed to protect unaccompanied minors, keeping them from seeking asylum or disputing their removal. The scheme allegedly involved the transition of minors from the ORR’s custody to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement for their removal, sidestepping the ongoing immigration process.
There are federal laws exempting these lonely children from expedited removal while guaranteeing them their right to migration court hearings. The Trump administration is accused of violating these laws. The violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, and their constitutional rights to due process is being scrutinized.
The lawsuit, lodged early on a Sunday morning, includes ten plaintiffs—identified solely by their initials and age, ranging from 10 to 17 years. Two of these children were labeled simply as minors. In under half an hour, an emergency relief appeal followed. A parallel lawsuit filed the previous day in a federal court in Chicago resulted in a temporary suspension of deportations for four Guatemalan minors.
NILC attorneys believe that the children could face significant dangers if they were returned to Guatemala. These could include persecution and severe emotional distress. They allege the government is not abiding by legal obligations and is ignoring the rights of minors seeking asylum. A statement from Efrén C. Olivares, vice president of litigation and legal strategy at the NILC, criticized the administration for jeopardizing the safety of defenseless children, violating the Constitution, and breaking federal law to send children to places they fear.
According to the NILC’s legal document, the defendants’ actions have put these children at risk of danger by sending them back to their home country, where they fear persecution. The complaint mirrored the statements of Gladis Molina Alt, head of the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, who argued for the right of every child to due process, access to legal counsel, and a fair personalized decision regarding their claims.
Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, president, and CEO of Global Refuge expressed his concern about potential violations of the due process and child welfare standards. He pointed out that protections for such children had been put in place with bipartisan support to screen for trafficking, abuse, or fear of persecution, before deciding on their future.
The court is still deliberating on whether the emergency order should be extended or transformed into a preliminary injunction. If the administration is indeed found guilty of contravening federal law, it might trigger wider restrictions on the deportation procedures relating to solitary minors.
The case is far from over, as it’s expected that more hearings and filings would occur in the days to come. This case reaffirms the importance of upholding laws and treating these vulnerable children with the respect and consideration they deserve. Tugging these children back and forth like tokens in a high-stake gambling match: is this the policy we want?