In a dramatic turn of events that has sent ripples through the U.S. immigration system, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. has put a halt to the Trump administration’s attempt to deport dozens of unaccompanied Guatemalan children, citing a lack of evidence for the government’s justification and sharply criticizing the rushed nature of the operation. The decision, issued by Judge Timothy Kelly on September 18, 2025, comes after a tense Labor Day weekend in which children were awoken in the middle of the night and driven to airports, some even being put on planes before an emergency legal intervention stopped the deportations in their tracks.
According to Reuters, the administration’s effort to deport 76 Guatemalan minors in U.S. custody on August 31 was both sudden and secretive, sparking a lawsuit and an emergency hearing that temporarily blocked the move. The government initially claimed that parents had requested their children’s return to Guatemala—a claim that soon unraveled under judicial scrutiny.
Judge Kelly, himself a Trump appointee, did not mince words in his 43-page opinion. He wrote, “There is no evidence before the Court that the parents of these children sought their return.” He further described the administration’s explanation as having “crumbled like a house of cards” when confronted with a report from the Guatemalan attorney general. That internal report, as cited by NBC News, revealed that of the roughly 600 Guatemalan children in U.S. custody, most parents could not be contacted, and among those reached, many did not want their children returned to Guatemala.
The ruling temporarily blocks the Trump administration from deporting any Guatemalan unaccompanied minors who have not received a final removal order or explicit permission from the U.S. attorney general to depart. This protection extends to children currently housed in federal shelters or with foster families, many of whom have fled abuse, neglect, or trafficking in their home countries.
The government’s operation, which Judge Kelly described as a “midnight operation,” involved removing children from their beds at shelters and foster homes in the dead of night. At one shelter in McAllen, Texas, a young girl was so terrified by the experience that she vomited, according to evidence submitted in court. Another child, already terrified of returning to Guatemala and with no one there to care for her, was abruptly moved from her foster home to an immigrant shelter.
Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, issued a stinging rebuke of the ruling. “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,” she said in a statement quoted by NBC News and The Washington Post. The administration argued that its actions were not deportations, but rather ‘reunifications’ in accordance with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008, a law designed to protect unaccompanied migrant children.
But the judge was unconvinced. The Guatemalan attorney general’s report “undermines” the administration’s claims, he wrote. Of the 609 adolescents listed in a database provided by the U.S., only about 50 to 57 parents were even willing to receive their children—and none had actively requested their return. “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,” Judge Kelly added.
Legal advocates for the children, including the National Immigration Law Center and the Young Center for Immigrant Children’s Rights, hailed the decision as a vital safeguard for vulnerable minors. Efrén Olivares, vice president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, stated, “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.” He went on, “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.”
The suit was originally filed on behalf of 10 Guatemalan unaccompanied minors aged 10 to 17, but the ruling now protects all Guatemalan children in similar circumstances. Plaintiffs had sought broader protections for unaccompanied minors from other countries, but Judge Kelly’s order stopped short of that, applying only to Guatemalan nationals for now. “There may be a better policy solution to this difficult, complex issue than what law requires,” Kelly wrote. “But a ‘policy disagreement with Congress,’ of course, is no license for the Executive ‘to ignore statutory mandates.’”
The government’s approach has drawn criticism from multiple quarters. Judge Kelly challenged the administration’s assertions in court, and even a whistle-blower report submitted to Congress alleged that the Office of Refugee Resettlement ignored its own data indicating that at least 30 of the children had suffered abuse or neglect in Guatemala. The whistle-blowers claimed the agency raced to clear the children for removal despite these red flags.
According to The New York Times, the Guatemalan government had expressed concern about children being placed in U.S. immigration detention and stated in a diplomatic note that unaccompanied children returning “by judicial action or voluntarily” would be “received safely.” However, interviews with parents told a different story. One Guatemalan mother, whose 16-year-old son could be subject to deportation, told Reuters that her son wanted to remain in California despite her longing for him. “This is what he wanted,” she said, describing her own struggles to make ends meet in Guatemala.
The Trump administration’s actions are part of a broader pattern of aggressive immigration enforcement, including the controversial family separation policy during the president’s previous term. That policy, which separated children from parents at the border and sometimes left children in the U.S. while parents were deported, drew widespread condemnation—even from some within the president’s own party.
For now, Judge Kelly’s ruling stands as a significant check on executive power, reaffirming the legal protections afforded to unaccompanied minors under federal law. The fate of the children—and the broader contours of U.S. immigration policy—remain uncertain as the case proceeds. But one thing is clear: the courts are not willing to let policy disagreements override statutory protections for some of the most vulnerable people at America’s borders.
