In a landmark legal moment, immigrant rights lawyers have taken swift action to halt the deportation of hundreds of Guatemalan minors in the United States, citing the imminent risks these children face if returned to their home country. The case has ignited a broader debate over the treatment of unaccompanied minors in the U.S. immigration system and how the administration balances humanitarian concerns with border enforcement policies. Lawyers representing the children, who range from 10 to 17 years old, filed an emergency petition with a federal court in Washington, D.C., urging a judge to issue an injunction to block the Trump administration’s removal efforts. The petition argues that the minors are at risk of suffering severe harm, including abuse, neglect, or even persecution, if sent back to Guatemala, where violent gangs like the Tren de Aragua are known to operate.
The situation has intensified following a series of emergency court orders. After learning that more than 60 minors had been transferred from the Health and Human Services (HHS) to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody and were placed on a plane bound for Guatemala, Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, issued an immediate restraining order to halt the removals. The order, which came shortly after Labor Day, marked a dramatic shift in the legal landscape, as Sooknanan demanded that the Department of Justice provide frequent updates on the status of the minors until the process was complete. This swift action has drawn both praise and criticism, particularly from the Trump administration, which has described the judge’s intervention as an overreach of judicial authority.
Legal experts have underscored the significance of Sooknanan’s rulings, noting that she has effectively set a precedent by refusing to entertain any ambiguity in the case, unlike a previous controversial ruling by another judge in a similar matter. The attorneys now seek to extend this emergency order into a long-term injunction, arguing that the children’s safety and legal rights demand a more permanent solution. The case has drawn broader attention because of the scale of the minors involved—approximately 600 children in U.S. custody—and the potential for a larger class action ruling. The lawyers have argued that the Trump administration is attempting to sidestep the legal process by removing the minors without fully evaluating their asylum claims or ensuring their safety.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has issued a strong response, labeling the judge’s orders as “disgusting” and “immoral,” contending that the administration is simply trying to reunite the children with their families. A spokeswoman for the Department of Justice stated that the Guatemalan government had requested the return of the migrant youths and that “all of these children have their parents or guardians in Guatemala who are requesting their return.” This claim has been challenged by the attorneys, who argue that the government is using this as a pretext to expedite deportations, ignoring the children’s legal status and the risks they face if sent back.
The case has also underscored ongoing tensions between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary, with the administration reportedly considering legal action against judges who issue injunctions. This development highlights the broader debate over the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary, particularly in cases involving immigration and humanitarian law. As the case moves forward, the outcome could have far-reaching implications for how the U.S. handles the deportation of vulnerable minors and the role of the judiciary in protecting their rights.