On August 31, 2025, a federal judge in Washington issued an emergency restraining order halting the Trump administration’s plan to deport unaccompanied Guatemalan children, citing serious due process concerns.
At a Glance
- Federal Judge Sparkle Sooknanan granted a 14-day order blocking deportations of Guatemalan minors.
- The case was filed by the National Immigration Law Center early on August 31 on behalf of at least 10 children.
- Plaintiffs argue the administration violated immigration law requiring hearings for unaccompanied minors.
- The Department of Health and Human Services was preparing to transfer children to ICE custody for removal.
- A parallel case in Chicago similarly froze deportations of several Guatemalan minors.
Court Halts Midnight Deportation Effort
Just after 4 a.m. ET on August 31, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan granted a temporary restraining order blocking deportations of Guatemalan children held in federal custody. The order came less than three hours after the National Immigration Law Center and allied groups filed an emergency lawsuit. The court acted swiftly, noting the “exigent circumstances” posed by the administration’s plan to begin immediate removals.
Watch now: US judge bars government from sending Guatemalan children back, for now
https://apnews.com/article/3790909d69f19fd8cd8edffb6b3215c3?utm_source=chatgpt.com
The order will remain in effect for 14 days while the court considers arguments for a longer injunction. A virtual hearing was scheduled later the same day. The children involved are between the ages of 10 and 17 and are currently under the care of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services. The lawsuit said the administration was preparing to transfer these minors into Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody for deportation flights to Guatemala.
Legal and Human Rights Concerns
Under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, unaccompanied minors from non-contiguous countries are entitled to full immigration proceedings before removal. Lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that the administration’s plan would have denied these rights by placing the children on expedited flights without hearings. According to the complaint, parents, guardians, and attorneys were given no notice of the planned removals.
Government officials framed the effort as a “pilot program” aimed at testing new enforcement procedures. However, advocates warned that the plan represented a sharp break from long-standing legal protections. Efrén Olivares of the National Immigration Law Center described the attempt as “a dark and dangerous moment” that threatened to undermine due process for some of the most vulnerable migrants in U.S. custody. Human rights groups emphasized that many of the children fled severe violence and instability in Guatemala, making deportation without hearings especially perilous.
Wider Implications and Next Steps
The emergency order in Washington coincided with a related ruling in Chicago, where another judge temporarily paused deportations of Guatemalan minors in federal custody. Together, these cases indicate that multiple courts are prepared to examine closely whether the administration is complying with statutory protections for unaccompanied children. Reports suggested that more than 600 Guatemalan children were identified for deportation under the pilot initiative, raising questions about how far the program had advanced before judicial intervention.
Immigration experts said the restraining order could shape larger legal battles over executive power in immigration enforcement. If courts ultimately find that the administration acted outside the bounds of federal law, the rulings could constrain similar efforts in the future. For now, the immediate effect is that children targeted for removal remain in the United States while the litigation proceeds. The outcome of these hearings is likely to influence broader debates over due process, humanitarian protections, and the limits of presidential authority in immigration policy.
Sources
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Editor
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://deepstatetribunal.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
