A federal judge in Massachusetts on Monday blocked the Trump administration’s system for imposing fines of up to $1.8 million on migrants who remain in the United States after receiving final deportation orders, finding the department violated federal procedural requirements in implementing the penalties.
U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. issued the ruling in Boston as part of a class-action lawsuit brought by two migrants and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s expanded use of civil immigration penalties. The decision prevents DHS from enforcing penalties imposed through the challenged procedures while litigation continues.
What Happened
The Trump administration has dramatically expanded enforcement of a 1996 federal law authorizing civil penalties against migrants who “willfully fail or refuse” to comply with final removal orders. Since returning to office in January 2025, DHS issued more than 103,000 fines totaling approximately $84 billion, according to the department. Some migrants received penalties calculated retroactively over five years, producing individual bills approaching $1.8 million.
In June 2025, DHS and the Justice Department issued an interim rule intended to streamline the penalty process. The changes eliminated a previous 30-day notice period, reduced time available for administrative appeals, removed certain procedural protections, and allowed DHS to issue final penalty decisions more quickly. The administration argued these changes were necessary to strengthen immigration enforcement and encourage compliance with removal orders.
O’Toole found that DHS implemented the new system in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide the public with the required opportunity to comment on the changes before implementation. The judge also faulted the department’s use of standardized forms that failed to adequately explain why individual migrants met statutory requirements for a penalty or whether their failure to leave was actually “willful” as required by law.
The Reaction
O’Toole wrote that the plaintiffs, who live in economically precarious circumstances, could be pushed into insolvency by the government’s enforcement of the fines. The plaintiffs argued that DHS had bypassed legally required rulemaking procedures and was issuing massive penalties using boilerplate forms without properly determining whether each person’s failure to depart met the statutory standard of willfulness.
DHS did not immediately comment on the decision. The ruling does not eliminate the federal government’s authority to fine migrants who willfully refuse to comply with final removal orders, only blocking enforcement through the procedures the judge found unlawful.
The Massachusetts case is not the first legal challenge to the administration’s immigration fine system. In September, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in California separately blocked DHS from collecting a $1.82 million penalty against a Chinese woman subject to a removal order. Tigar concluded the government had not adequately demonstrated that her failure to depart was willful and found the penalty likely violated the Constitution’s prohibition against excessive fines, noting it was more than seven times the maximum criminal fine available for similar conduct.
What This Means
O’Toole’s ruling carries broader implications because it arose from a class-action challenge and targets the administration’s overall procedures rather than addressing a single migrant’s penalty. The decision represents a legal setback for one component of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, though it does not prevent the government from pursuing deportations or assessing fines through procedures that comply with existing law.
The underlying statute, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, remains in effect. Congress authorized the penalties with a current inflation-adjusted maximum of $998 per day for someone subject to a final removal order who “willfully fails or refuses” to leave the country. The administration could potentially revise its procedures to address the judge’s concerns regarding public comment and individualized determinations of willfulness before reimplementing the fine system.
