As a new legal battle unfolds in federal courts, the fate of dozens of migrant children from Central America hangs in the balance, thrusting the U.S. government’s deportation practices and child protection laws into an intense spotlight. The Arizona-based Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (FIRRP) has sounded the alarm, claiming “credible” information that authorities are poised to deport a group of Honduran children in government custody as soon as this weekend, despite ongoing litigation and a recent judicial order halting similar removals for Guatemalan minors.
On September 5, 2025, FIRRP amended a lawsuit—originally filed the previous weekend to block the deportation of Guatemalan children—to include a dozen Honduran children who have told the organization they do not want to return to their home country. According to the Associated Press, FIRRP’s latest legal maneuver is a direct response to reports that the U.S. government will “imminently move forward with a plan to illegally remove Honduran children in government custody as soon as this weekend, in direct violation of their right to seek protection in the United States and despite ongoing litigation that blocked similar attempted extra-legal removals for children from Guatemala.”
The amendment to FIRRP’s lawsuit is currently sealed in federal court, and details about the group’s intelligence regarding the planned deportations have not been made public. The Department of Homeland Security has yet to respond to requests for comment from multiple news outlets, including the Associated Press, leaving both advocates and the public in suspense.
This legal standoff comes on the heels of a chaotic Labor Day weekend, when the Trump administration attempted to deport 76 Guatemalan children who had crossed the border alone and were living in U.S. shelters or foster care. The government’s actions triggered a flurry of lawsuits from child advocates across the country, all seeking to block the removals. By Sunday, September 7, 2025, a federal judge had intervened, ordering that the Guatemalan children remain in the United States for at least two weeks while their cases are reviewed.
According to court filings and statements by Angie Salazar, acting director of the Office of Refugee Resettlement at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the government initially identified 457 Guatemalan children for possible deportation. To be eligible, the children had to be at least 10 years old, have no pending asylum claim, and have a parent or legal guardian in Guatemala. Ultimately, 327 children were found to meet these criteria, and 76 reportedly boarded planes early Sunday morning in what the government described as the “first phase” of the operation. All were at least 14 years old and had “self-reported” that they had a parent or legal guardian in Guatemala but none in the United States.
Despite these preparations, the Justice Department later clarified that no planes carrying the children actually took off, countering a courtroom remark from one of its attorneys that suggested otherwise. The episode highlighted the confusion and high stakes surrounding the government’s approach to unaccompanied minors.
Children who cross the U.S. border alone are typically transferred to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which operates a network of shelters across the country. These children remain in custody until they can be released to a sponsor, most often a relative. The process is governed by a 2008 law requiring that all children—except those from Canada and Mexico—be given the opportunity to appear before an immigration judge and pursue asylum if they fear persecution or harm in their home countries.
Illegal border crossings by unaccompanied minors have fluctuated dramatically over the past decade. The number of children arriving alone at the border surged in 2014 and peaked at 152,060 in the 2022 fiscal year, according to government data cited by the Associated Press. However, recent figures suggest a sharp decline: July 2025 arrests indicate an annualized rate of just 5,712, marking the lowest level in six decades. In 2024, Guatemalans accounted for 32% of residents at government-run holding facilities, followed by Hondurans, Mexicans, and Salvadorans.
FIRRP’s amended lawsuit now covers not only the 12 Honduran children but also four additional Guatemalan children who have come into government custody in Arizona since the original filing. Some of these children reportedly have parents already residing in the United States, complicating the government’s efforts to justify their removal. The legal aid group’s demands are straightforward: that the government allow all affected children their full legal rights—to present their cases before an immigration judge, to access legal counsel, and to be placed in the least restrictive setting that serves the child’s best interests.
Federal law does grant the Department of Health and Human Services the authority to “repatriate” or “reunite” children with parents or legal guardians in their country of origin, but only if the child has not been a victim of severe human trafficking, is not at risk of such exploitation, and does not face a credible fear of persecution upon return. Crucially, deportation is prohibited if a child has a pending asylum claim. These legal safeguards are at the heart of FIRRP’s argument, as the group contends that any rushed removal would violate both U.S. and international obligations to protect vulnerable minors seeking refuge.
For many of these children, the prospect of return to Honduras or Guatemala is fraught with fear. FIRRP has emphasized that the Honduran children included in the lawsuit have explicitly expressed their desire not to go back, citing concerns for their safety and well-being. Advocates argue that the government must respect these wishes and ensure each child’s case is heard individually, with access to legal representation and a fair process.
The controversy has reignited debate over the U.S. government’s handling of unaccompanied minors and the broader question of how to balance immigration enforcement with humanitarian obligations. While some officials argue that repatriation is necessary to deter future unauthorized crossings and maintain order at the border, legal advocates and many in the public believe that the rights and welfare of children must come first, especially in cases where they may face danger if returned home.
As the legal process unfolds, the eyes of the nation—and indeed, the world—remain fixed on the outcome. The next steps taken by the courts and the government will not only determine the fate of these specific children but could also set important precedents for how the United States treats its youngest and most vulnerable migrants in the years to come.
For now, the children at the center of this legal fight wait in shelters, their futures uncertain, as advocates and officials grapple over the meaning of justice and protection in the American immigration system.
