A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction, halting the Trump administration's efforts to levy fines of up to $1.8 million against migrants who remained in the country after receiving final orders of deportation.
U.S. District Judge George O'Toole in Boston delivered the ruling on Monday. It came in response to a class-action lawsuit initiated last year by two of the numerous migrants who had faced civil penalties from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Judicial Findings on Legality and Economic Impact
Judge O'Toole granted provisional relief to the plaintiffs, concluding that the administration's methodology for imposing these financial penalties contravened federal law. He further determined that migrants, often in an "economically precarious position," could be driven into "insolvency" by the requirement to address these fines.
"The plaintiffs live in an economically precarious position even without the imposition of the government’s exorbitant fines," Judge O’Toole wrote in his decision.
He elaborated on the potential consequences, stating, "They face the possible garnishment of their already modest wages, loss of any vehicles and homes, federal collections lawsuits and other adverse collateral consequences. If they were ultimately successful in this suit, there is no indication that simply requiring the government to vacate their fine notices would –– or even could, at that point –– make the plaintiffs whole or return the circumstances to the status quo."
O’Toole, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, highlighted the plaintiffs' circumstances, noting their low incomes and their flight from political violence to the United States.
Referring to one plaintiff, O’Toole wrote, "Nancy M. was fined over $1.8 million. She is a laborer working over 60 hours a week with two jobs, and she reports feeling serious anxiety affecting her ability to sleep, eat and live a normal life."
Procedural Violations Cited
The judge also found that the administration’s notices regarding these fines violated the Administrative Procedure Act. This was due to a failure to provide specific allegations that would explain why an individual’s conduct justified such a penalty.
Additionally, O’Toole concluded that the administration had not adhered to proper rulemaking procedures when implementing its streamlined fine-imposition process. Specifically, it neglected to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on the policy changes before they were enacted.
Context of the Administration's Fine Policy
The Department of Homeland Security had stated as recently as July that it had issued more than 103,000 fines to migrants, accumulating to approximately $84 billion, since the Trump administration commenced these penalties.
DHS has consistently defended these penalties, asserting that individuals who decline to leave the country after receiving a final order of removal could face daily fines of $998.
While Congress authorized civil penalties under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, no previous administration had attempted to implement such fines until President Trump's first term in office.
The Trump administration initiated the imposition of these daily fines, set at $998, for migrants who did not depart the country following a final deportation order. These penalties were applied retroactively for periods up to five years, with a maximum individual fine reaching $1.8 million.
Policy Adjustments and Congressional Scrutiny
During a July period within the administration's tenure, DHS and the Department of Justice introduced modifications aimed at streamlining the fine assessment process. These changes included eliminating a 30-day notice period and shortening the timeframe available to challenge the penalties.
The plaintiffs in the class-action suit successfully challenged this revised policy. They also contested what they described as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) practice of issuing fines using standardized, boilerplate forms without conducting independent assessments of whether a person’s failure to leave was "willful" or "voluntary."
Congressional lawmakers have also sought to challenge the administration’s fines against migrants. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) previously urged DHS and the Department of Justice to halt the "improper application of certain civil penalties" within the Immigration and Nationality Act, particularly concerning "law-abiding immigrants."