In a dramatic turn of events over the Labor Day weekend, a federal judge issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s attempt to deport more than 600 unaccompanied Guatemalan children from the United States to Guatemala. The last-minute intervention capped a chaotic series of legal maneuvers, government actions, and tense moments at airports in Texas, as advocates, lawyers, and officials scrambled to determine the fate of hundreds of vulnerable minors.
It all began in the early hours of Sunday, August 31, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan, sitting in Washington, D.C., responded to an urgent lawsuit filed by the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) and other advocacy groups. The suit alleged that the Trump administration was preparing to remove hundreds of unaccompanied Guatemalan children—some as young as ten years old—without providing them the legal protections guaranteed under U.S. law. The children, currently in the custody of the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), had been moved from shelters in the middle of the night and were reportedly being loaded onto planes in Harlingen and El Paso, Texas, for immediate deportation.
Judge Sooknanan, a Biden appointee, issued her order just after 4 a.m., citing "exigent circumstances" and instructing the government to cease any ongoing efforts to transfer, repatriate, remove, or otherwise facilitate the transport of any Plaintiff or member of the putative class from the United States. The order applied to all Guatemalan unaccompanied minors in ORR custody as of 1:02 AM on August 31, who were not subject to an executable final order of removal.
The judge initially scheduled a virtual hearing for 3 p.m. but moved it up to 12:30 p.m. after learning that some children were already in the process of being removed. During the hearing, Sooknanan expressed concern about the government’s actions, stating, "I have the government attempting to remove minor children from the country in the wee hours of the morning on a holiday weekend, which is surprising, but here we are." She also noted, "I have conflicting narratives from both sides here," referring to the sharply different accounts presented by government lawyers and advocates for the children.
According to the NILC, the Trump administration’s plan was a "first of its kind pilot program" coordinated with the Guatemalan government. The administration argued that the transfers were not deportations but reunifications with family members in Guatemala, with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign claiming, "All of these children have parents or guardians in Guatemala who have requested their return." However, advocates disputed this, saying that many children did not have such requests from family and, in some cases, had no suitable family to return to at all.
The legal filings painted a stark picture of the risks facing these children. One of the plaintiffs is a ten-year-old indigenous girl whose mother is deceased and who suffered abuse and neglect from other caregivers. Many of the children are indigenous and speak rare languages, making them particularly vulnerable to misunderstandings and, according to the NILC, to "being misled by officials looking to deport them." The NILC argued that the administration’s actions violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and other federal laws, which require that unaccompanied minors be given the opportunity to have their cases heard before an immigration judge. "It is a dark and dangerous moment for this country when our government chooses to target orphaned 10-year-olds and denies them their most basic legal right to present their case before an immigration judge," said Efrén Olivares, vice president of litigation at the NILC.
Despite the judge’s order, there were reports that, in the early morning hours of August 31, dozens of children were removed from shelters and prepared for transport to airports. At Harlingen airport, charter buses were seen unloading passengers, and at least one plane was readied for departure. During the emergency hearing, government attorney Ensign admitted it was "possible" that one flight had taken off but said it had returned, and assured the court that all children covered by the lawsuit remained in U.S. custody.
The episode echoed a similar incident five months earlier, when a federal judge had to intervene to halt the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to a notorious prison in El Salvador. In both cases, the courts acted with unusual speed to prevent what they saw as potential violations of due process and federal law. Judge Sooknanan, clearly aware of that precedent, began her hearing by making sure the government had received her order and understood its scope: "I do not want there to be any ambiguity about what I am ordering."
The Trump administration, for its part, maintained that it was acting within its authority and that the removals were being carried out in cooperation with the Guatemalan government. Carlos Ramíro Martínez, Guatemala’s foreign minister, confirmed coordination with the United States and said his country expected to receive more than 600 minors. However, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Guatemala’s foreign ministry declined to comment further to news outlets, including Reuters and POLITICO.
The case highlights the complex and often contentious intersection of immigration policy, child welfare, and international diplomacy. Federal law entitles unaccompanied minors to special protections, including the right to a full hearing on their claims for asylum or relief. Yet, as advocates point out, rapid policy shifts and secretive removals can put these rights at risk. "We are very concerned that our clients could be returned to unsafe situations," said Ms. Sendukas, managing attorney with the Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, as reported by The New York Times.
As the legal battle plays out, the children remain in limbo, their futures uncertain. The NILC and its allies have vowed to use "every legal tool at our disposal" to prevent the administration from sending children to what they describe as dangerous and unstable conditions in Guatemala. Meanwhile, the Trump administration continues to defend its actions as lawful and necessary, insisting that it is simply reuniting children with their families.
For now, Judge Sooknanan’s order stands as a temporary shield for these vulnerable children, ensuring that at least for the next two weeks, they will not be forced onto planes in the dead of night. The broader legal and moral questions—about how the United States treats the world’s most vulnerable migrants—remain unresolved, awaiting the next round in court.
