On September 18, 2025, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. delivered a decisive blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to deport hundreds of unaccompanied Guatemalan children, sharply criticizing the government’s justification for the removals and setting off a fierce debate over immigration policy, child welfare, and executive authority.
The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly—himself a Trump appointee—came after weeks of legal wrangling and late-night court filings. At the heart of the controversy was the administration’s attempt to remove as many as 600 Guatemalan children in federal custody, some as young as ten, over the Labor Day weekend. According to court documents cited by States Newsroom, many of these children were woken in the middle of the night and rushed onto planes, a move that alarmed advocates and immigration attorneys, who managed to secure a temporary restraining order just in time to halt the deportations of at least ten children.
The Trump administration initially claimed it was acting at the request of the children’s parents, arguing that reunification was the goal. However, Judge Kelly found this rationale lacking, writing in his opinion that the explanation “crumbled like a house of cards about a week later.” He added, “There is no evidence before the Court that the parents of these children sought their return.” This assessment was echoed across multiple outlets, including The Washington Post and Axios, which reported that a Justice Department attorney conceded during a hearing that the administration could not substantiate its claim.
Further undermining the government’s position was a whistleblower report shared with Congress on September 16, 2025, which revealed that dozens of the children slated for deportation had been flagged in federal databases as likely victims of child abuse, death threats, gang violence, or human trafficking. Judge Kelly cited this evidence in his ruling, noting the grave risks these children might face if returned to Guatemala. “Such a rushed, seemingly error-laden operation to send unaccompanied alien children back to their home countries is one of the things that the TVPRA’s process prevents,” he wrote, referencing the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008—a law that establishes strict procedural safeguards for unaccompanied minors in U.S. custody.
Parents of some of the children also weighed in through court declarations, with one mother, identified as B.M.R.P., pleading, “I think she is in danger if she does return to Guatemala. All I ask is that you help my daughter stay safe—help her stay safe by not returning her to Guatemala.” According to States Newsroom, several parents were unaware their children were even being considered for deportation, and some specifically requested that their children remain in the United States for their safety.
The National Immigration Law Center, which represented the children alongside the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, hailed the ruling as a major victory. Efrén C. Olivares, the law center’s vice president of litigation and legal strategy, said in a statement, “Today’s court decision is a significant victory for the hundreds of children who are now safe from the Trump administration’s unlawful attempt to expel them from the United States. The court saw through the government’s repeated misrepresentations of critical facts to try to justify the indefensible targeting of vulnerable children who would have faced danger if sent to other countries.” Olivares added, “This decision should send a clear message to the administration that they have no legal authority to circumvent the law to expel unaccompanied children without due process.”
Judge Kelly’s preliminary injunction blocks the Trump administration from deporting any unaccompanied Guatemalan minor unless an immigration judge has issued a final removal order or the child has petitioned to leave voluntarily. The order is narrower than what plaintiffs initially sought—they had asked for protections to extend to children from other countries as well, but Kelly limited the scope to Guatemalans, as reported by States Newsroom. Still, a separate federal judge in Arizona issued a temporary restraining order until September 26, 2025, barring the removal of both Honduran and Guatemalan children in federal custody, further complicating the administration’s efforts.
The government, for its part, condemned the ruling. Tricia McLaughlin, spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, said in a statement carried by The Week and Nexstar Media, “This judge is blocking efforts to REUNIFY CHILDREN with their families. Now these children will have to go to shelters. All just to ‘get Trump.’ This is disgraceful and immoral.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson echoed this sentiment, asserting, “The lower court wrongly interjected itself into this effort. We look forward to vindication on the legal authority to promote family reunification.”
In its legal filings, the Justice Department argued that “where possible, unaccompanied alien children should be reunited with their parents or guardians. Their continued separation is a tragedy to be cured, not prolonged as Plaintiffs request classwide, regardless of a specific child’s best interest.” However, Judge Kelly was unconvinced, emphasizing that Congress had established specific legal protections for unaccompanied minors, and that executive policy preferences could not override statutory mandates. “There may be a better policy solution to this difficult, complex issue than what law requires,” he wrote. “But a ‘policy disagreement with Congress,’ of course, is no license for the Executive ‘to ignore statutory mandates.’”
The case has broader implications for immigration enforcement and the treatment of children in federal custody. Under the TVPRA, unaccompanied minors from countries other than Mexico or Canada are entitled to placement in immigration proceedings and access to legal counsel. They cannot be summarily deported without due process, and the law requires authorities to consider the best interests of the child. As Axios and States Newsroom highlighted, the Trump administration’s attempt to rebrand the removals as “reunifications” was seen by the court as a transparent effort to circumvent these protections.
Advocates warn that the stakes are high. Many of the children at the center of the case fled violence, abuse, or dire poverty in their home countries. The whistleblower report cited by Judge Kelly suggested that a significant number of those targeted for removal were at risk of further harm if sent back. In the words of Judge Kelly, “The record here is barren of evidence that any child in the proposed class wants to return to Guatemala, even if their parents can be found.”
As the case moves forward, the preliminary injunction stands as a significant check on executive power, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in upholding statutory rights—even in the face of urgent policy disputes. For now, hundreds of Guatemalan children remain in the United States, their futures uncertain but, at least for the moment, protected by the courts.
