Federal judge finds DHS in contempt for deporting teenage asylum seeker in violation of court orders, directs Trump admin to bring him back
A federal judge has held the Department of Homeland Security in contempt for deporting a teenage asylum seeker to El Salvador in violation of court orders and directed the Trump administration to return him to the United States so he can pursue his asylum claim.
In an order issued U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher of the District of Maryland found that federal officials violated court orders issued November 25, 2024, April 23, 2025 and July 29 when they removed the teenager, identified in court filings as E.L.A. The judge said the removal violated protections under a class-action settlement governing certain asylum seekers who entered the United States as unaccompanied minors, according to the Davis Vanguard.
The contempt finding requires the government to comply with the court’s orders and remedy the effects of the removal, including by returning E.L.A. to the United States.
A DHS spokesperson previously told Newsweek that E.L.A. had requested voluntary departure after arriving at an ICE field office. The spokesperson said he had entered the U.S. illegally in 2023 and was deported. He was returned to the U.S. in early August before being deported a second time.
Deportee to be returned
The ruling is the latest development in a case that drew scrutiny after Gallagher pressed government attorneys to explain how E.L.A. was deported despite court-ordered safeguards. She repeatedly questioned who was responsible for the removal and whether required procedures had been followed.
The judge ordered the government to return E.L.A. to the United States and barred officials from executing a final removal order against him until either U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issues a final determination on a properly filed asylum application under the settlement agreement or the agreement expires.
Gallagher ordered the government to return the E.L.A. and to “refrain” from executing any removal orders against him until his asylum case is fully processed.
The government must provide E.L.A., his immigration attorney and class counsel with three days’ advance notice of his planned arrival in the United States, return any property and documents taken from him during his removal and provide at least five business days’ notice to E.L.A., his lawyers, class counsel and the court before attempting any future removal. Officials must also identify the legal authority supporting any future removal effort.
Results of a class-action lawsuit
The case stems from J.O.P. v. DHS, a nationwide class action challenging government policies affecting certain asylum seekers who entered the United States as unaccompanied children. In November 2024, Gallagher granted final approval to a settlement providing protections for eligible class members pursuing asylum claims before USCIS.
Subsequent enforcement orders sought to prevent class members from being removed before their eligibility and asylum claims were properly reviewed. Gallagher’s order required ICE to refrain from removing individuals identified as potential class members until USCIS either adjudicated their asylum application or determined they were not members of the class. It also required ICE to maintain system alerts and conduct specific reviews before carrying out removals.
According to filings submitted by class counsel, E.L.A. was initially removed from the United States. After the government confirmed he was covered by the settlement, he was returned to the United States on August 7 so his asylum application could proceed.
Attorneys said he was being held in immigration detention in Louisiana while preparing for an asylum interview and psychological evaluation when he was removed a second time.
Violation of settlement agreement
Class counsel told the court they learned something was wrong after a scheduled video appointment was canceled because E.L.A. was reportedly no longer at the detention facility. Later that day, relatives told attorneys that E.L.A. had contacted family members from El Salvador and said he had been deported.
His attorneys did not learn of the deportation until hours later, when E.L.A. contacted a family member from the San Salvador airport using a stranger’s telephone.
Lawyers argued that the removal violated the settlement agreement and multiple court orders protecting class members from deportation before their asylum claims were decided.
Government lawyers later acknowledged that E.L.A. had been removed to El Salvador. In correspondence the day after the removal, government attorneys said officials were considering steps to address communication errors that led to what they described as E.L.A.’s erroneous removal, according to Axios.
Friday’s order is the court’s most significant response so far. Gallagher concluded that the government violated three separate court orders and imposed measures intended to facilitate E.L.A.’s return and prevent a similar removal.
The contempt finding follows an earlier ruling in the case and made public shortly afterward, in which Gallagher found that the government had violated the terms of the 2024 settlement.
The order directs the parties to update the court on the status of E.L.A.’s return to the United States, including whether he wishes to return and, if so, plans to carry it out.
Gallagher also ordered the accompanying memorandum opinion filed under seal and gave the parties one week to propose redactions before a public version is released. As a result, the court’s detailed reasoning for the contempt finding is not yet publicly available.