After Labor Day weekend showdown, Trump admin obeys court order not to deport children to Guatemala

Source: Law & Crime

Sep 1st, 2025, 3:04 pm


In an unusual Labor Day weekend showdown, dozens of "unaccompanied" Guatemalan minors separated from their parents or legal guardians swiftly persuaded a federal judge to block the Trump administration from carrying out deportations — and as of Monday, the DOJ said, the government has followed the temporary restraining order (TRO) that came with the judge's ruling.

The breakneck court activity, though not entirely unlike weekend proceedings in March in the high-profile Alien Enemies Act (AEA) case J.G.G. v. Donald Trump, unfolded in the wee hours of the morning — and has so far yielded a strikingly different response from the government.

The court docket in L.G.M.L. et al. v. Kristi Noem just about says it all. The complaint was filed in the early-morning hours Sunday, and we know this because U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said in a minute order that the complaint was filed at 1:02 a.m. Sooknanan then issued a TRO at 4:22 a.m. and set a hearing for 3 p.m. later the same day.

The judge said her order was justified by the "exigent circumstances" presented, namely the allegation the government was planning to deport to Guatemala 10 "unaccompanied minors" between the ages of 10 and 17 and potentially "hundreds" more, a situation the would-be class action lead plaintiffs described as "imminent risk of unlawful removal from the United States," with loaded planes reportedly sitting on a tarmac.

Read more: https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/after-labor-day-weekend-showdown-trump-admin-obeys-court-order-not-to-deport-children-to-guatemala-and-avoids-another-potential-contempt-scandal/

During the hearing yesterday, Ensign said: “This has been done previously. This is not a new use of this authority. Prior Secretaries have done precisely this.”

He didn't cite specific examples.

What is he talking about?

When did prior Secretaries do this?

bsky.app/profile/anna...

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) 2025-09-01T18:18:51.561Z

This is the provision Ensign cited as the basis for the government's authority to summarily remove unaccompanied migrant children.

I’d love to hear from immigration lawyers, but having briefly looked at it… it’s so frivolous it’d be laughable if it weren’t so cruel.

(Am I wrong??)

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) 2025-09-01T05:05:27.115Z

There’s a bunch of statutory protections that specifically apply to removals of unaccompanied migrant children.

But DOJ argues that 6 U.S.C. 279(B)(1)(H) establishes an independent basis for removal in order to “reunify” kids w/ a parent abroad…

bsky.app/profile/joed...

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) 2025-09-01T13:21:33.534Z

…The government’s argument seems crazy to me because, among other things, it suggests that 6 U.S.C. 279(b)(1)(H) displaces or overrides processes set out in statutes like the TVPRA

bsky.app/profile/anna...

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) 2025-09-01T13:29:37.890Z

Judge Sooknanan asked Ensign about this during the hearing and tbh even he seemed reluctant to take the view that the provision he cited overrides all the other statutory protections…

He tried to argue that the Title 6 provision is “its own form of protection”??

bsky.app/profile/anna...

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) 2025-09-01T13:41:31.670Z

During the hearing yesterday, Ensign said: “This has been done previously. This is not a new use of this authority. Prior Secretaries have done precisely this.”

He didn't cite specific examples.

What is he talking about?

When did prior Secretaries do this?

bsky.app/profile/anna...

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) 2025-09-01T18:18:51.561Z