Maria Juarez DACA Lawsuit: Coggins Rules Deportation Unlawful

A federal judge ruled in March 2026 that the deportation of Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, a 42-year-old Sacramento mother with active DACA protections, was a “flagrant violation” of her rights under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The Maria Juarez DACA lawsuit, filed as Estrada Juarez v. Noem in the Eastern District of California, produced an order requiring the government to bring her back to the United States within seven days and to restore her DACA status as though the removal had never happened.¹

Who Maria Estrada Juarez Is

Estrada Juarez first came to the United States in 1998, at 15. She was removed to Mexico that year under an expedited removal order but returned weeks later and lived in California continuously for the next 27 years. She received DACA in 2013, worked her way from a gas station cashier to a regional manager for Motel 6, and raised a daughter, Damaris Bello, who is now 22 and a U.S. citizen.²³

In 2014, she traveled to Mexico using advance parole, a travel authorization available to DACA recipients, and reentered the United States lawfully on December 28, 2014. That lawful reentry became a critical fact in the litigation.⁴

The February 2026 Arrest and Deportation

On February 18, 2026, Estrada Juarez went to the John E. Moss Federal Building in Sacramento for a scheduled interview on her green card application. She was seeking to adjust status as the relative of a U.S. citizen, and her daughter came with her. During the interview, officials told her the application could not proceed because of the 1998 expedited removal order still on her record. Immigration agents arrested her in front of her daughter.⁵

The government reinstated the 1998 order and deported her to Mexico less than 24 hours later, on February 19, 2026. USCIS separately denied the green card application, citing the same old order.⁶¹ Her attorney, Stacy Tolchin, said Estrada Juarez was not given a chance to consult a lawyer or appear before an immigration judge before she was removed.

What the Lawsuit Argued

Tolchin filed suit on March 10, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Docketed as No. 2:26-cv-00801, the case was styled as a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, and it named then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, and Sergio Albarran, acting field director of the San Francisco ICE office, as defendants.⁷

The complaint made three central arguments. First, deporting someone with active DACA status violated due process because DACA is an explicit exercise of prosecutorial discretion not to pursue removal. Second, the 1998 removal order was never finalized because it lacked the required supervisory signature. As Tolchin put it, “They’ve reinstated something that doesn’t exist.”¹⁸

Third, the complaint attacked the “illegal reentry” premise for reinstating the old order. Reinstatement requires an unlawful reentry, but Estrada Juarez’s most recent entry was through advance parole in December 2014, a lawful form of admission. The filing also included an emergency request that the court order the government to bring Estrada Juarez back while the case moved forward.⁴

The Government’s Position

DHS defended the deportation by pointing to the 1998 removal order, her prior physical removal, and what it characterized as a later illegal reentry. The agency said ICE reinstated the old order on that basis and carried out the removal on February 19. DHS also maintained that “DACA does not confer any form of legal status” and that recipients remain subject to deportation if they commit a crime or reenter unlawfully.³⁴ In court, the government also argued that the court lacked jurisdiction because Estrada Juarez had already been removed, and that the deportation was a discretionary enforcement decision.⁷

Judge Coggins’ Ruling

On March 23, 2026, U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins issued a 15-page temporary restraining order siding with Estrada Juarez on every major point. The opinion found she “was removed in flagrant violation of the regulatory protections afforded to her under DACA” and the Due Process Clause.¹

Judge Coggins rejected the government’s jurisdictional argument. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, she found that an “extreme circumstances exception” applied and that the removal of someone with active DACA status warranted continued judicial oversight. “Indeed, it is difficult to argue that Petitioner’s removal constitutes anything less than an ‘extreme circumstance,'” she wrote.¹

She was pointed about the implication of the government’s speed defense. “Essentially, Respondents argue that the government is immune from liability from any claim for violation of a noncitizen’s right to due process in removal proceedings so long as that right is violated quickly,” Coggins wrote.¹

The court found Estrada Juarez and her daughter were suffering “unimaginable irreparable harm” from their separation. Coggins ordered the government to facilitate her return within seven days and to restore her DACA status and all associated benefits “as if her February 19, 2026, removal never occurred.”⁹ DHS called the decision “yet another ruling from a Biden-appointed activist judge” but said ICE “follows all court orders.”³

Return to the United States and What Remains Unresolved

Estrada Juarez spent about 40 days in Mexico staying with relatives before the government complied with the order. On the night of March 30, 2026, she crossed back into the United States through the San Ysidro Port of Entry on humanitarian parole and reunited with her daughter in Sacramento.³⁶ Talia Inlender of UCLA School of Law described the outcome as a “rare example of a judge ordering a person’s return to the United States after being deported.”²

Her legal situation was not fully resolved by the ruling. Her DACA status was restored, but a pending renewal carried an expiration date of April 23, 2026, and the file does not confirm whether that renewal was ultimately approved.¹⁰ The green card denial remained in place, and Tolchin filed a motion to reopen and reconsider the denial while separately seeking Ninth Circuit review of the reinstatement of the 1998 order.⁹ As of June 2026, the federal case remained listed as ongoing, and the government had not appealed Judge Coggins’ ruling.⁷

How the Case Fits a Broader Pattern

Estrada Juarez’s deportation was not an isolated event. According to data provided by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, the agency arrested 270 DACA recipients and deported 174 of them between January and September 2025 alone. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said publicly that “DACA does not confer any form of legal status in this country” and that recipients “may be subject to arrest and deportation.”¹¹

Other DACA holders had won federal court relief before Estrada Juarez, including community organizer Catalina “Xóchitl” Santiago Santiago, ordered released by a judge in the Western District of Texas in September 2025, and Paulo Cesar Gamez Lira, ordered released by a federal judge in New Mexico after the government did not oppose the request.¹¹¹² Those recipients had been detained but not yet removed. What made Estrada Juarez’s case distinct was that she had already been sent to Mexico, which is what gave Judge Coggins’ return order its unusual weight. Tolchin summarized the underlying principle: “DACA gives you a vested right to not be deported once it’s granted.”²

1
Mother Jones. Judge Orders Return of Mother Deported Despite DACA
2
CapRadio. California Woman Returns Home After the Trump Administration Deported Her to Mexico
3
Sacramento Bee. Sacramento DACA Recipient Returns After Deportation
4
Los Angeles Times. California DACA Recipient Sues Trump Administration Over Her Deportation
5
The Guardian. Judge Orders Return of DACA Recipient Deported During Immigration Appointment
6
FWD.us. Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, a DACA Recipient, Speaks Out Following Return
7
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Estrada Juarez v. Noem
8
KCRA. Sacramento Mother Deported Despite DACA Status Returns Home
9
Mother Jones. A Judge Ordered Her Return After a Wrongful Deportation. Now Comes the Hard Part
10
CNN. Deported DACA Recipient Returns to U.S.
11
Immigration Policy Tracking Project. Detentions of DACA Recipients Show They’re Not Shielded From Trump’s Mass Deportations
12
El Paso Matters. DACA ICE Arrests and Federal Court Rulings