On a humid Sunday morning at La Aurora International Airport in Guatemala City, anxious families gathered, peering through glass doors and clutching faded photos, waiting for the return of their children. These children, all from Guatemala, had been living in shelters and foster care in the United States, only to find themselves swept up in a late-night government operation that would send them back across the border they had risked everything to cross. The events of Labor Day weekend 2025 have now become a flashpoint in the ongoing debate over immigration policy in the United States, with a federal judge in Washington, D.C., stepping in to temporarily halt the deportations and extend protections for these vulnerable minors.
According to AP News and Newsday, the Trump administration, in a swift and secretive move on August 30, 2025, notified shelters across the country that Guatemalan migrant children traveling alone would be returned to their home country. The shelters, which typically house children who cross the southern border alone, were told they had only hours to prepare the children for departure. Contractors for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) fanned out to collect the children from both shelters and foster care homes, transporting them to airports in El Paso and Harlingen, Texas. By the early morning of August 31, seventy-six children had boarded planes bound for Guatemala, the first phase of what the government described as a larger effort to return unaccompanied minors.
Initially, the government identified 457 children for possible removal. After a series of internal reviews, that list was trimmed to 327. The rapid pace and secrecy of the operation left advocates scrambling. Immigration and children’s rights groups, having caught wind of the impending removals, rushed to court to stop the deportations. Their core argument was that many of these children had fled abuse or violence in Guatemala and would be at risk if sent back. They also charged that the government was sidestepping legal protections designed to shield young migrants from being returned to dangerous situations without due process.
In response to the advocates’ lawsuit, a federal judge in Washington issued a 14-day temporary restraining order, halting the removals except in cases where an immigration judge had already ruled that a child should be deported after a full review. This decision, as reported by AP News, was a significant check on the administration’s plans. Judge Timothy J. Kelly, presiding over the case, explained in his order that he needed additional time to consider the rapidly evolving facts. The government, he noted, had changed its account during a September 10 hearing, backtracking on earlier claims that the children’s parents had actually requested their return to Guatemala.
On September 13, Judge Kelly extended the restraining order by three more days, pushing the protection for these children through September 16. He cited the need for a brief extension to further study the legal and factual complexities of the case. The judge’s action has given advocates a temporary reprieve, but the underlying issues remain unresolved. Children’s advocates have asked the court for longer-term protections, not just for Guatemalan children but also for Honduran minors who may be at risk of similar removal efforts. The court has yet to rule on this broader request.
The government has defended its actions, arguing in court filings that it has the legal authority to return children in its care. Officials also stated that the operation was conducted at the request of the Guatemalan government, which expressed concern about minors in U.S. custody who were approaching their 18th birthdays. Once these minors become adults, they risk being transferred from child welfare settings to adult detention facilities—a prospect that has alarmed officials in both countries.
For children who cross the U.S.-Mexico border alone, the journey doesn’t end with their first steps on American soil. Typically, these minors are transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, a division of the Department of Health and Human Services. There, they live in a network of shelters scattered across the United States, overseen by the resettlement office, until they can be released to a sponsor—usually a family member already living in the country. The process is meant to provide a safe haven and a measure of stability while their legal cases are resolved. But the events of late August and early September have thrown that system into turmoil.
According to Newsday, the advocates’ legal battle is not confined to Washington. During the Labor Day weekend, separate lawsuits were filed in Arizona and Illinois, seeking to block the removal of Guatemalan and, later, Honduran children. While these cases are narrower in scope than the Washington lawsuit, they reflect a nationwide scramble by advocates to shield migrant children from abrupt deportations.
The legal and political stakes are high. The Trump administration has consistently argued that swift removals are necessary both to enforce immigration law and to deter future unauthorized crossings. Supporters of the administration’s approach maintain that returning children to their home countries, particularly when requested by foreign governments, is within the executive branch’s authority. They point to the risks posed when minors age out of the child welfare system and face transfer to adult facilities, which are often ill-equipped to handle the unique needs of young people.
On the other hand, children’s advocates and immigrant rights groups warn that the government’s actions bypass critical safeguards. They argue that many of the affected children are fleeing life-threatening circumstances, including gang violence, abuse, and poverty. Forcing them to return without a full and fair hearing, they contend, runs counter to both U.S. law and international human rights obligations. "Many of these children were fleeing abuse or violence in their home countries and the government was bypassing longstanding legal procedures meant to protect young migrants from being returned to potentially abusive or violent places," advocates said in court filings, as reported by AP News.
The Guatemalan government, while expressing concern for its citizens, has also highlighted the dilemma faced by minors in U.S. custody. Officials worry that once these children turn 18, they will lose the protections afforded to minors and could end up in adult detention centers, a scenario fraught with risks and challenges.
As the legal battle continues, the children at the heart of the case remain in limbo—shielded for now by court orders, but uncertain about their future. Families in Guatemala wait anxiously for word, while advocates in the United States prepare for the next round of legal arguments. With Judge Kelly’s extension set to expire on September 16, all eyes are on the federal court in Washington, where the fate of hundreds of children hangs in the balance.
The outcome of this case will not only determine the immediate future of these Guatemalan minors but could also set precedents for how the U.S. government handles the deportation of unaccompanied migrant children in the years to come.
