Trump Lawyer's False Claims Led to Hasty Deportation of Guatemalan Children

A Judge's Ruling Highlights Concerns Over Deportation of Guatemalan Children

A federal judge who was appointed during the Trump administration has criticized a Justice Department lawyer for making false claims in court to justify a rushed operation that deported dozens of Guatemalan children in the middle of the night over the Labor Day weekend. The judge, Drew Ensign, described the actions as part of a hasty operation that uprooted 76 children from their beds at federal shelters and foster homes, sending them on airplanes because they and their parents wanted to reunite.

Caretakers were given as little as two hours to prepare for the sudden departure. One girl reportedly vomited out of anxiety, while another said she would end her own life if sent home. In a 43-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Timothy J. Kelly stated that the Justice Department’s claims about quickly reuniting families “crumbled like a house of cards.”

“There is no evidence before the Court that the parents of these children sought their return,” Kelly wrote in a decision temporarily barring U.S. officials from expelling the children. “To the contrary, the Guatemalan Attorney General reports that officials could not even track down parents for most of the children whom Defendants found eligible for their ‘reunification’ plan. And none of those that were located had asked for their children to come back to Guatemala.”

The ruling comes amid growing scrutiny of the Trump administration’s treatment of immigrant children, particularly as it continues efforts to carry out mass deportations. While Trump officials claim they are searching for hundreds of thousands of minors they allege the Biden administration admitted and then lost track of, critics argue that the government is endangering children by separating them from their parents or attempting to swiftly expel them to countries they fled.

Efrén C. Olivares, an attorney with the National Immigration Law Center who led the emergency lawsuit filed last month to block the removals to Guatemala, called Kelly’s decision “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 added that the court saw through the government’s misrepresentations of critical facts to justify targeting vulnerable children who would face danger if sent back.

The Justice Department and U.S. Health and Human Services, which was involved in the late-night operation, did not immediately respond to requests for comment. At a hearing earlier this month, a different lawyer for the Justice Department told Kelly that she did not have evidence to back up Ensign’s claims that the parents wanted their children back.

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the operation after the judge’s ruling, calling it an effort to reunify children with their families. She claimed that blocking the operation would force the children into shelters and accused the court of acting “disgraceful and immoral.”

Kelly, a former federal prosecutor and chief counsel to Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), ruled that the administration cannot expel minors to Guatemala unless an immigration judge has ordered them deported or they have the U.S. government’s permission to leave voluntarily, and after officials follow procedures to ensure it is safe for them to go home.

The judge emphasized that the rushed, error-laden operation that took place over the holiday weekend is exactly what federal law aims to prevent. He noted that he saw no sign the Trump administration wouldn’t repeat such actions and warned that the plan could significantly harm children.

The operation began before midnight on August 30, when HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement notified shelter workers and foster parents to prepare children for deportation to Guatemala. Lawyers filed an emergency lawsuit, and U.S. District Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan issued an order at 4:30 a.m. to block the planes from taking off, which Kelly later extended.

At a hearing later that day, Ensign called the lawsuit “fairly outrageous,” claiming the government had been working with Guatemalan officials to repatriate hundreds of children whose parents wanted them to return. However, Kelly pointed out that the Guatemalan attorney general’s office found no evidence that parents had requested their children’s return.

Many of the children feared going home. One girl had fled “death threats” in Guatemala, while another boy, abandoned by his father, said his mother could not protect him from “violent drug dealers.” Another boy shared that his sister had recently been murdered in the country.

Lawyers argue that sending children to a country where they are at risk of torture or serious harm is illegal under the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA). This law outlines procedures for handling unaccompanied children from noncontiguous countries, ensuring they are not sent home to harm.

Kelly also highlighted inconsistencies in the government’s claims, noting that the Guatemalan attorney general’s report undermined the administration’s arguments about parental reunification. The report revealed that only a small number of parents were willing to receive their children, and none had requested their return.

Top Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have called for oversight hearings into the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s actions, citing allegations that its acting director, Angie Salazar, misled the court. Sens. Alex Padilla (D-California) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) cited a whistleblower letter that claimed Salazar inaccurately stated in a court filing that officials had checked to ensure it was safe to send the children to Guatemala.

“How would any such attorney have had a reasonable opportunity to protest Defendants’ ‘reunification’ plan when it was set in motion in the middle of the night on a holiday weekend?” Kelly asked, raising doubts about whether officials were acting in good faith.