Updated

Updated · Bloomberg Law · Aug 10

Maryland Court Holds DHS in Contempt Over 50 Migrant Children, Denies 1 Return Request

Updated

Updated · Bloomberg Law · Aug 10

Maryland Court Holds DHS in Contempt Over 50 Migrant Children, Denies 1 Return Request

Q: What specific penalties will the agency face for civil contempt after wrongfully removing dozens of asylum-seeking minors?

The ruling, as described, does not specify a monetary fine or other fixed contempt sanction on DHS. What the court did do was hold the Department of Homeland Security in civil contempt for violating the J.O.P. settlement by removing more than 50 confirmed class members despite system alerts flagging them as protected. The available reports indicate the judge partly granted the motion to enforce the settlement and found the removals unlawful, but they do not identify a set per-violation penalty, lump-sum fine, or coercive daily sanction in the contempt order itself. The practical penalty reflected in the ruling is judicial enforcement of the settlement and a contempt finding that can support further remedial orders if violations continue. Those remedies can include closer court supervision, compliance directives, and possible future sanctions, but the materials provided do not show that the court immediately imposed a defined financial punishment. The court also declined to order the return of a Guatemalan class member who left under voluntary departure, holding that voluntary departure is not the same as a barred final removal order under the settlement. So while DHS was found in contempt over the broader wrongful removals, the reporting does not show a specific contempt fine attached to that particular order.

1 articles · Updated · Bloomberg Law · Aug 10

A Maryland federal judge found the Department of Homeland Security in civil contempt for removing more than 50 unaccompanied migrant children covered by an asylum-rights settlement.
System alerts had identified the children as confirmed class members, but DHS removed them anyway, leading the court to grant part of a motion to enforce the settlement.
One Guatemalan child with an intellectual disability will not be ordered returned, because the judge ruled his accepted voluntary departure was not a barred final removal order under the agreement.
The ruling draws a line between removals that violated the settlement and departures the court said fall outside its protections for unaccompanied children seeking asylum.