Federal Judge blocks flights sending hundreds of children back to Guatemal

Sept, 2025 : An US District federal judge Sparkle Sooknanan has ordered an emergency halt just after 04 AM on Sunday to a plan by the Trump administration to send more than 600 unaccompanied Guatemalan children back to their home country some within a matter of hours — after immigrant advocacy groups sued, calling the unannounced plan illegal. The court has issued the order, finding that the “exigent circumstances” described in the lawsuit warranted immediate action “to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set”.

The judge, had initially scheduled a virtual hearing on the matter for 03 PM on Sunday, but later moved up the hearing to 12:30 PM after being notified that some minors covered by the suit were in the process of being removed from the United States. “I have the government attempting to remove minor children from the country in the wee hours of the morning on a holiday weekend, which is surprising, but here we are”, Sooknanan said at the hastily assembled hearing.

The judge also said, “I have conflicting narratives from both sides here”, adding that what she heard from the advocates for the children “doesn’t quite line up with what I’m getting from the government”.

Around 600 children arrived in the United States alone and are currently in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement. According to lawyers for the children, the administration is preparing to send them back to Guatemala without notice or a chance to contest their deportation in some cases abruptly halting their pending immigration proceedings.

The attorneys say the Trump administration has described the deportation effort as part of a “first of its kind pilot program” in cooperation with the Guatemalan government. Justice Department attorney Drew Ensign disputed that the transfer of children constituted deportations at all, but would actually be reunifications of children and their parents. “These are not removals under the statute”, Ensign said. “These are repatriations. It’s outrageous that the plaintiffs are trying to interfere with these reunifications”.

During the hearing, Ensign said the planes involved were currently on the ground, though one may have taken off and returned to the U.S. with the children on board. He said the effort was the result of extensive discussions with the Guatemalan government, which confirmed the parents’ desire to bring the children back. “All of these children have parents or guardians in Guatemala who have requested their return”, Ensign said.

However, immigrant rights advocates said that was not true in at least some of the cases, and they accused the Trump administration of short-circuiting the required legal process. “There are many children who do not meet the criteria, Mr. Ensign described”, attorney Efrén Olivares of the National Immigration Law Centre said. He said some of the children were sitting on planes at airports in Harlingen and El Paso, Texas.

The children who filed the lawsuit are identified only by initials and range in age from 10 to 17 years old, in addition to two identified only as “minors.” Sooknanan’s initial order covered only the 10 children named as plaintiffs, but she later expanded it to cover all such children “not subject to an executable final order of removal”. The lawsuit was filed just after 01 AM on Sunday and the request for emergency relief less than a half hour later, court records show. The case has not yet been formally assigned to a judge, but Sooknanan is designated as the emergency judge for the U.S. District Court in Washington for most of the Labour Day holiday weekend.

In the suit, NILC attorneys said federal immigration laws exempt unaccompanied children from expedited deportation proceedings and provide additional protections for those seeking asylum. “All unaccompanied children regardless of the circumstances of their arrival to the United States receive the benefit of full immigration proceedings, including a hearing on claims for relief before an immigration judge”, they wrote. “Defendants’ actions are thus exposing children to multiple harms in returning them to a country where they fear persecution and by flouting their legal obligations to care for them in the United States”.

The judge began the Sunday afternoon hearing by making sure that the Justice Department received her expanded order and had made sure government officials at HHS and the Department of Homeland Security were aware of it. “I do not want there to be any ambiguity about what I am ordering”, Sooknanan said. The Justice Department later told the court in a report that all the children who had been on planes ready to go to Guatemala had deplaned in the United States.

The episode is reminiscent of the extraordinary rush to halt President Donald Trump’s effort to summarily deport more than 130 Venezuelans to an anti-terrorism prison in El Salvador in March, using his wartime authority under the Alien Enemies Act.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, issued a similarly quick ruling based on an overnight lawsuit, racing to halt flights carrying the Venezuelans after finding that the Trump administration appeared to be violating the immigrants’ due process rights. But the administration carried out the flights anyway, claiming they had already left U.S. airspace and, therefore, were not subject to Boasberg’s command. Justice Department officials also argued that Boasberg’s oral order in court was not binding.

Ensign was the Trump administration lawyer arguing that case as well. Sooknanan began the hearing by instructing Ensign to make certain the Trump administration was aware of her broad blockade on the deportation effort a nod to Boasberg’s earlier concern that the administration had defied the clear intent of his directive. Ensign further had argued that the government’s authority to send the children back to Guatemala had been used by previous administrations.

But lawyers for the children said at least some of the children set to be sent to Guatemala did not want to return, had no such request from their parents, and have legitimate fears about going back. “It is a dark and dangerous moment for this country when our government chooses to target orphaned 10-year-olds and denies them their most basic legal right to present their case before an immigration judge”, Olivares said in a statement before the hearing.

Sooknanan, undoubtedly aware of the machinations in the high-profile case Boasberg handled on a weekend just over five months ago, sounded suspicious that the mass transfer of children early on the Sunday morning of a holiday weekend was routine and legally justified. The suit filed in Washington on Sunday came on the heels of a similar case filed in federal court in Chicago on Saturday. Details of that suit were not immediately available, but U.S. District Judge Georgia Alexakis halted the deportation of as many as four Guatemalan minors until Wednesday. Alexakis, a Biden appointee, also scheduled a hearing that day on the issue.

Spokespeople for DHS and HHS did not reply to requests for comment Sunday. Alexakis indicated that the Trump administration is currently “investigating” the location of the children in her case to determine whether any have already been deported or relocated from Illinois. Laura Smith, the attorney who filed the Chicago case, said Sunday that despite Sooknanan’s order some of the Guatemalan children were being loaded onto a plane in Harlingen, Texas.

There were also indications on Sunday that some of the facilities in which the children have been housed may be resisting instructions to turn them over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In a memo dated Sunday and obtained by the Press, the acting director of HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement, Angie Salazar, threatened civil lawsuits and possible criminal prosecution against any ORR contractors who fail to comply with “lawful requests” from her agency. Salazar did not elaborate on the nature of the requests that were not being complied with. “When ORR makes a decision regarding the care and custody of a child consistent with and in furtherance of its statutory and legal obligations, your refusal to comply can materially interfere with ORR’s ability to effectively complete its statutory mission”, Salazar wrote.

“Negligent or intentional failure to comply with lawful requests from ORR regarding the care of children in your care facility will result in prompt legal action, and may result in civil and criminal penalties and charges, as well as suspension and termination of contractual relations with your facility”.

Team Maverick