Federal judges in Washington and Arizona blocked the Trump administration’s Labor Day weekend 2025 effort to summarily deport hundreds of unaccompanied Guatemalan children, and the Guatemalan children deportation lawsuit, formally captioned L.G.M.L. v. Noem, has since produced a preliminary injunction that remains in force while plaintiffs ask the court to hold the government in contempt over an alleged workaround. The courts found the administration’s stated reason for the operation, that parents in Guatemala had asked for their children back, was not supported by evidence, and that moving the children without immigration hearings likely violated a 2008 federal statute written specifically for unaccompanied minors.
What Happened on August 30, 2025
On the night of August 30, 2025, staff at Office of Refugee Resettlement shelters in Arizona and South Texas woke unaccompanied Guatemalan children and began loading them onto deportation flights.1Human Rights Watch. US Judge Blocks Expulsion of Guatemalan Children The operation targeted roughly 600 to 700 minors in ORR custody, ranging in age from three to seventeen, all of whom had entered the United States without a parent or guardian. The administration called the effort a “reunification” program, asserting that Guatemalan parents had requested their children’s return and that Guatemala’s government was prepared to receive them.2ABC News. Lawyers Block Trump Administration Repatriating Guatemalan Minors
The Two Lawsuits Filed Within Hours
The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on August 30 on behalf of 53 Guatemalan children housed in ORR shelters near Phoenix and Tucson.3Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. Florence Project Files Lawsuit on Behalf of Detained Guatemalan Children A few hours later, at roughly 2:35 a.m. on August 31, the National Immigration Law Center filed L.G.M.L. v. Noem in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, naming ten unaccompanied minors as plaintiffs.4NILC. LGML v. Noem
Both suits alleged violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which requires that unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries receive full removal proceedings before an immigration judge rather than expedited deportation.5NILC. NILC Sues to Stop Trumps Unlawful Expulsion of Hundreds of Guatemalan Children The plaintiffs also raised constitutional claims, arguing that summary removal violated due process and that singling out Guatemalan children amounted to national-origin discrimination.
Emergency Orders Stopped the Flights
In Washington, U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued an emergency temporary restraining order before 4:30 a.m. on August 31, halting the deportation flights and ordering that children already in the process of removal be deplaned and returned to ORR custody.2ABC News. Lawyers Block Trump Administration Repatriating Guatemalan Minors According to a congressional letter, the administration did not comply with the order until at least 10:30 a.m. that morning.6House Democrats Judiciary Committee. Raskin, Padilla, Durbin, Jayapal Demand Answers Judge Sooknanan granted a 14-day hold covering the originally named plaintiffs and, later, the broader class of Guatemalan unaccompanied minors in ORR custody who lacked final removal orders.7Politico. Judge Blocks Deportation Guatemalan Children
In Arizona, U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez issued a separate temporary restraining order blocking removal of the 53 children named in the Florence Project suit. Judge Márquez found “serious questions” about whether federal officials were removing children in violation of the TVPRA and ordered that any child already in transit be returned to the United States.8Tucson Sentinel. Courts Halt Removal 53 Guatemalan Children From Arizona The Florence Project later amended its complaint to add 16 children from Honduras, and Judge Márquez extended protections to all 69 minors, ultimately granting a preliminary injunction on September 25, 2025.9Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project. Florence Project Wins Preliminary Injunction
The Parental-Request Story Fell Apart
The administration’s central claim, that Guatemalan parents had asked for their children back, did not survive scrutiny. A report from the Guatemalan Attorney General’s office found that of 609 children identified by ORR for repatriation, officials were able to contact only about 204 families and confirm just 115. Many parents expressed surprise or anger at the proposal. Families of 59 children explicitly refused. Between 50 and 57 parents said they were willing to receive their children, but none had initiated a request for their return.10Georgetown ICAP. LGML v. Noem, Memorandum Opinion
On September 10, 2025, a Department of Justice attorney withdrew the administration’s earlier court statements about parental requests.6House Democrats Judiciary Committee. Raskin, Padilla, Durbin, Jayapal Demand Answers
A Whistleblower Challenged the Safety Screening
A whistleblower disclosure submitted to the Senate Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration further undercut the administration’s safety assurances. Acting ORR Director Angie Salazar had submitted a sworn declaration on September 6, 2025, stating that the 327 children targeted for repatriation had been screened to ensure they would not face abuse, trafficking, or violence. Whistleblowers found that ORR’s own database told a different story: at least 30 of those children had documented indicators of child abuse, death threats, gang violence, or human trafficking, or had expressed fear of returning home. A review of 50 sampled cases showed that 20 percent contained red flags that should have disqualified those children from repatriation under the government’s own criteria.11Sen. Padilla. Whistleblower Disclosure to Congress
Senators Alex Padilla and Dick Durbin called for oversight hearings, and Representatives Jamie Raskin and Pramila Jayapal sent letters to Secretaries Rubio, Bondi, Kennedy, and Noem demanding written answers about compliance with the TVPRA and due process requirements by September 29, 2025.12Sen. Padilla. Padilla, Durbin Call for Oversight Hearings
Judge Kelly’s Preliminary Injunction
On September 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, a Trump appointee, issued a preliminary injunction in L.G.M.L. v. Noem that extended the earlier emergency block. Judge Kelly wrote that the administration’s reunification rationale had “crumbled like a house of cards” and that there was “no evidence before the Court that the parents of these children sought their return.”13New York Times. Guatemalan Children Deportation He found the plan likely violated the TVPRA, which mandates access to counsel and an immigration hearing for unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries. He also found irreparable harm, citing the high-pressure, middle-of-the-night nature of the operation and the children’s documented fear of return.10Georgetown ICAP. LGML v. Noem, Memorandum Opinion
The injunction covers a provisionally certified class of all unaccompanied Guatemalan children in ORR custody, present and future, who have not received a final removal order or permission for voluntary departure. The court noted that attempts to similarly expel children of other nationalities without following established procedures would “likely be unlawful” as well.14NILC. Advocates Win Preliminary Injunction
The Fight Over an Alleged Workaround
The injunction did not end the litigation. In February 2026, plaintiffs filed a motion asking the court to hold the government in contempt for allegedly circumventing the injunction through a new program. According to the motion, Customs and Border Protection agents began using a document called a “UAC Processing Pathway Advisal” to persuade unaccompanied children from non-contiguous countries to accept rapid “voluntary return” within 72 hours of entering custody, before they reached ORR shelters or spoke with a lawyer. Plaintiffs alleged that agents used intimidation, misinformation, and threats of prolonged detention, arrest of family sponsors, and physical force to pressure children into signing documents they did not understand.15NILC. Plaintiffs Motion for an Order to Show Cause As of mid-2026, the preliminary injunction remains in effect while the court considers the contempt motion and a related request to broaden the class definition.16National Center for Youth Law. LGML v. Noem
The Legal Framework Behind the Rulings
The case rests on a legal framework Congress built specifically for unaccompanied children. Under the 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, children from countries that do not share a border with the United States must be transferred to ORR custody within 72 hours and placed in the “least restrictive setting” appropriate to their age and needs. They are entitled to full removal proceedings before an immigration judge, access to legal counsel, and cannot be placed in expedited removal. If a child is ultimately ordered removed, the government must ensure “safe and sustainable repatriation.”17NILC. LGML v. Noem TRO Filing
The Flores Settlement Agreement, a 1997 consent decree that predates the TVPRA, sets additional baseline standards. Children must be held in safe and sanitary facilities, cannot be housed with unrelated adults for more than 24 hours, and generally must be transferred to a state-licensed facility or released to a vetted sponsor within three to five days.18Congressional Research Service. The Flores Settlement and Alien Families Apprehended at the U.S. Border The Flores agreement remains in full effect for the Department of Homeland Security, though portions relating to HHS were conditionally terminated in mid-2024 after the finalization of a new ORR foundational rule. Mexican and Canadian children, who come from countries that border the United States, are not covered by the TVPRA’s non-contiguous-country protections and may be returned under separate procedures.