Judge Holds DHS in Contempt Twice for Deporting Protected Young Asylum Seekers, Including One Teen Deported to El Salvador Twice

What Happened

The Settlement

J.O.P. v. DHS is a nationwide class action filed in 2019 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of asylum seekers who entered the United States as unaccompanied children. Under a 2024 settlement, class members are protected from removal under final removal orders until U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services decides their asylum applications (Bloomberg Law). The class is represented by the National Immigration Project, Public Counsel, Kids in Need of Defense, Bet Tzedek and Goodwin Procter (National Immigration Project).

First Contempt Finding (July 2026)

On July 29, 2026, Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher, appointed by President Trump, found DHS in civil contempt for repeatedly removing people it was legally barred from deporting. According to class counsel, at least 107 protected people were removed before their asylum claims were decided: 54 confirmed class members and 53 more whom the government itself had flagged as potentially protected. The court rejected DHS's argument that it had acted in good faith because it self-reported removals once it discovered them. It ordered DHS to check its own records for protective flags before every removal, to add flags within two business days of identifying a potentially protected person, to issue written guidance to ICE staff nationwide, and to report to the court every two weeks (National Immigration Project).

E.L.A.: Deported, Returned, Deported Again

E.L.A., now 19, entered the United States in 2023 as an unaccompanied minor and is a class member. DHS deported him to El Salvador on March 13, 2026. He was returned to the United States in early August. He was then detained in Louisiana and deported to El Salvador a second time on September 1, 2026, about a month after the first contempt finding (Newsweek, Epoch Times).

On September 25, 2026, Gallagher held DHS in contempt again, finding that the second removal violated three separate orders, entered on November 25, 2024, April 23, 2025, and July 29, 2026 (International Business Times). She ordered the government to return E.L.A. and his confiscated property and documents, to give his lawyers at least five business days' notice and cite its legal authority before any future removal attempt, and not to execute a removal order against him until USCIS issues a final decision on a properly filed asylum application or the settlement expires (Bloomberg Law, Newsweek).

A DHS spokesperson called the deportation an "erroneous removal" caused by "communication errors" and said E.L.A. had "requested voluntary departure after arriving at an ICE field office" (Newsweek). Government attorneys acknowledged in court that the removal was improper (Bloomberg Law). DHS told the court it would place him on a flight from El Salvador, but said it could not compel him to board (Epoch Times).

Legal Analysis

Civil contempt requires a clear and specific court order, knowledge of it, and noncompliance. Here a judge appointed by the president whose administration is the defendant found all three, twice in two months. The second violation came after the first contempt order had required DHS to check for exactly the protective flags it then missed. That sequence undercuts the explanation of "communication errors." Error can explain a single mistaken removal. It is much harder to apply to more than a hundred removals followed by a repeat removal of the same person under active court supervision.

The harm goes beyond defying a court. The class consists of people who arrived as children and whose asylum claims, the basis for protection against refoulement, have not been heard. Deporting them before adjudication removes the only process that could determine whether sending them back exposes them to persecution. Article 33 of the Refugee Convention, which binds the United States through the 1967 Protocol, exists to prevent exactly that. This entry joins the archive's broader record of wrongful deportations carried out despite court orders.