Federal Judge in Boston Halts DHS Fines of Up to $1.8 Million on Migrants Who Did Not Leave After Deportation Orders
Judge George O'Toole ruled on October 5 that ICE issued the fines unlawfully under the Administrative Procedure Act, in a class action brought by two women and an immigrant legal-aid group; DHS had not commented in early reports.
Fines up to $1.8 million, and almost none collected
On Monday, October 5, 2026, a federal judge in Boston stopped a Trump administration program. The program fined migrants who stayed in the U.S. after a final deportation order. The fines run $998 a day and can add up to $1.8 million per person[1].
U.S. District Judge George O'Toole, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the fines were imposed unlawfully under the Administrative Procedure Act[1]. That is the federal law that sets the rules agencies must follow when they act. DHS did not immediately comment, and no appeal had been reported as of October 6[1].
Two numbers sit side by side in this story, and they pull in opposite directions. DHS said on July 23, 2026 that it had issued more than 103,000 fines worth more than $84 billion since January 2025[7]. Reports say DHS has collected about $1.2 million[9][17].
What the judge actually found
The ruling is about how the fines were made. It doesn't say Congress can't fine people. The judge found two flaws.
First, ICE used boilerplate forms. They "lacked specific allegations explaining why an individual's conduct warranted a penalty," according to Reuters[1]. Second, DHS adopted its streamlined fining process without letting the public comment first[1].
That second flaw has a name: notice-and-comment rulemaking. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, an agency generally must publish a proposed rule, take public comments, and answer them before a binding rule takes effect. It slows agencies down. It also lets people who will be affected flag problems early. DHS had published a related Federal Register document on civil penalties in June 2025[6].
The judge also wrote that halting the policies was needed. He said collecting the fines would likely push the plaintiffs into insolvency, and he described them as being in an "economically precarious position"[13].
The word "willfully"
The law behind the fines is 8 U.S.C. § 1324d. It allows civil fines on a noncitizen under a final removal order who "willfully" fails to depart or refuses to leave[5].
The plaintiffs build their case on that word. The case is a class action, meaning one lawsuit on behalf of a larger group in the same situation. It was filed on November 20, 2025, as Maria L. v. Noem, by two women and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center[2][4]. Public Justice, the plaintiffs' counsel, now lists it as Maria L. v. Mullin[3].
Their lawyers say the government must first ask whether each person's stay was deliberate. They say ICE skipped that question. They say it fined people who were following the rules, including some lawfully applying for immigration relief[4]. Some people also can't leave because no country will take them or they lack travel papers, the plaintiffs say.
That's why they call fines of up to $1.8 million on low-income people "grossly disproportionate"[11]. They also say the provision was "long-dormant." They say the first Trump administration used it and the Biden administration rescinded it[2][4].
DHS's case for the fines
DHS makes a serious argument of its own. Congress wrote these fines into law, and DHS says it is enforcing them[5][8]. Everyone fined already has a final removal order. An immigration judge has heard the case, and the appeals are over. In DHS's view, staying past that point is a choice. A law with no penalty has no teeth.
DHS also points to scale. With more than 100,000 cases, a standard form is the only practical way to enforce the law at all[7]. And the fines are meant as a nudge, not a bill. DHS promotes them as a way to get people to leave on their own, for example through its CBP Home app. That is cheaper and safer than arrest and deportation[7][8]. A Congressional Research Service note describes the same strategy[8].
Supporters of strict enforcement make a similar case. They see a mild, lawful consequence compared with detention[9][10]. They also note that the court faulted DHS's procedure, meaning the forms and the rulemaking. It did not question Congress's authority to fine[1][5].
Why the totals mislead both ways
The $84 billion works out to roughly $815,000 per fine. Only about 0.0014% of it has been collected. That is about one-seven-hundredth of one percent[9][17]. Almost no money has changed hands.
So the weight of the program isn't in the cash. It's in the pressure. A fine that is never collected still hangs over a person as a debt. And in a self-deportation strategy, the threat matters more than the payment[8][9]. The ruling removes that pressure for now.
The headline numbers also lean toward each side's story. DHS stresses the 103,000 fines and $84 billion. Those suggest a strong program, but they count fines issued, not money collected[7][9]. The plaintiffs stress the $1.8 million maximum. Most headlines picked that up, though the typical fine isn't known.
One ruling, many labels
Coverage of the ruling came almost entirely through Reuters. Its report was mostly straight. It gave the $1.8 million maximum in the headline, which echoes the plaintiffs' framing. It also gave DHS's 103,000 figure and noted O'Toole's appointing president[1].
No right-leaning coverage of the ruling turned up. Earlier right-leaning stories used different labels. The Washington Times wrote of "illegal immigrants who won't go home," and Breitbart of "illegal migrants"[9][10]. "Won't go home" assumes the willful refusal the lawsuit disputes. Breitbart repeated DHS's totals without noting how little had been collected. The Washington Times did report the $1.2 million.
Fox News covered the November 2025 filing rather than the ruling. It relied heavily on the plaintiffs' lawyers and their phrase "ruinous civil fines"[11]. TRT World, Turkey's state broadcaster, called the people fined "undocumented migrants"[12]. That label also settles a point the case disputes, since the plaintiffs say some have pending applications for relief.
Some outlets went further. A European aggregator, Dagens, wrote that the judge "freezes billions of dollars"[14]. That treats mostly uncollected fines as frozen money. It also made a procedural ruling sound like a finding of lawbreaking. Astig.ph aimed its story at Filipino readers, with the $1.8 million maximum in the headline[15].
What happens next
Public reports leave several things open. It isn't clear whether the relief is preliminary or final. The size of the covered class isn't stated either[1].
DHS has choices. It could appeal to the First Circuit. It could redo the rule with public comment. Or it could try to show willfulness case by case. Each path is slower than a standard form sent to tens of thousands of people.
Related fights are already under way. One Maryland suit challenges $5,000 fees[18]. For now, the question the judge raised is still unanswered: how much process the law requires before a person is fined for failing to leave.
Summary
A federal judge in Boston on Monday, October 5, 2026, halted a Trump administration program that fines migrants who stay in the U.S. after a final deportation order[1]. The fines run $998 a day and can reach $1.8 million per person[1]. U.S. District Judge George O'Toole, a Clinton appointee, ruled that the fines were imposed unlawfully[1]. He found that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used boilerplate forms that did not explain why each person deserved a penalty. He also found DHS adopted its fast-track fining process without first letting the public comment[1].
The case is a class action, meaning a lawsuit on behalf of a whole group of similar people. It was filed in November 2025 by two women, identified as Maria L. and Nancy M., along with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center[2][4]. Their lawyers say the law allows fines only when someone 'willfully' refuses to leave. They argue ICE skipped that question and fined people who were trying to follow the law[4]. DHS has described the fines as a tool to push people with final orders to leave on their own[7][8]. In July it said it had issued more than 103,000 fines worth more than $84 billion[7].
The core dispute is about the process, not the fines themselves. Congress did authorize fines for failing to leave[5]. The question is whether DHS can issue them in bulk, or must first decide case by case that a person's failure to leave was deliberate. Early reports did not include any DHS comment on the ruling. None reported an appeal as of October 6[1].
The Event
On October 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge George O'Toole of the District of Massachusetts ruled for the plaintiffs in a class action challenging DHS civil fines for failing to depart the country[1]. He held that the fines violated the Administrative Procedure Act. He said the penalty forms lacked specific allegations about each person, and that DHS skipped required public-comment rulemaking[1]. He wrote that halting the policies was needed because collecting the fines would likely push the plaintiffs into insolvency[13]. DHS did not immediately comment[1].
Undisputed Facts
- Federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1324d, allows civil fines on a noncitizen under a final removal order who 'willfully' fails to depart or refuses to leave[5].
- Starting in 2025, the Trump administration fined migrants $998 per day for failing to leave after a deportation order. The fines applied retroactively for up to five years, for a maximum of $1.8 million[1][16].
- DHS said on July 23, 2026 that it had issued more than 103,000 fines totaling more than $84 billion since January 2025[7].
- Reports say DHS has collected about $1.2 million of the fines issued[9][17].
- The lawsuit, Maria L. v. Noem (No. 1:25-cv-13471), was filed in federal court in Massachusetts on November 20, 2025, by two women and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center[2][4]. The plaintiffs' counsel Public Justice now lists it as Maria L. v. Mullin[3].
- Judge O'Toole ruled on October 5, 2026 that the fines were imposed unlawfully under the Administrative Procedure Act[1].
- DHS did not immediately comment on the ruling, and no appeal had been reported as of October 6, 2026[1].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- What 'willful' requires
- The statute fines only someone who 'willfully' fails to depart[5]. DHS's process has to show intent somehow. A blank form is cheap at scale. A case-by-case finding is slow but harder to challenge in court. The ruling turns on which of those the law requires[1][5].
- Notice-and-comment rulemaking
- The Administrative Procedure Act generally makes agencies publish a proposed rule, take public comments, and answer them before a binding rule takes effect. This slows agencies down. It also lets affected people and businesses flag problems before they are bound. O'Toole found DHS adopted its streamlined fining process without that step[1]. DHS had published a related Federal Register document on civil penalties in June 2025[6]. A process flaw like this can often be fixed by redoing the rulemaking, which is why it matters to both sides[1][6].
- Self-deportation strategy
- DHS uses the fines to encourage people to leave on their own through the CBP Home app[8]. In this approach, the threat of a fine matters more than collecting it[8][9].
Material realityDHS reports more than 103,000 fines worth more than $84 billion[7]. That works out to an average of roughly $815,000 per fine. It has reportedly collected about $1.2 million, which is roughly 0.0014% of the total, or about one-seven-hundredth of one percent[9][17]. So almost none of the money has changed hands. The practical weight of the fines is in the debts people carry, the threat of collection, and the pressure to leave. The ruling removes that pressure for now. Still unclear from public reports: whether the relief is preliminary or final, how wide the covered class is, and whether DHS will appeal to the First Circuit or redo the rule with public comment[1].
Narrative as a weaponDHS shapes the story through big totals: 103,000 fines and $84 billion. Those numbers suggest a strong enforcement program, but they reflect fines issued, not money collected[7][9]. The plaintiffs' lawyers shape it through the $1.8 million maximum and sympathetic individual cases[4][11]. Most headlines adopt that maximum, even though the typical fine is unknown. The labels 'illegal immigrants who won't go home' and 'undocumented migrants' each assume an answer to the willfulness question the court actually took up. Some aggregators then overstate what happened, describing a procedural ruling as frozen billions or proven lawbreaking[14].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asCongress wrote these fines into law decades ago. DHS argues it is simply enforcing them[5][8]. Everyone fined already has a final removal order. That means an immigration judge heard the case, and any appeals are over. In DHS's view, staying past that point is a choice, and a law with no penalty has no teeth. DHS presents the fines as a way to make people leave on their own, for example through its CBP Home app. That is cheaper and safer than arrest and deportation[7][8]. On scale: with more than 100,000 cases, a standard form is the only practical way to enforce the law at all[7].
WhyTo raise the cost of staying so more people self-deport, and to keep a low-cost enforcement tool alongside detention and removal[8].
Impact on themThe ruling halts a program DHS has promoted as central to its self-deportation push[7][8]. Losing it in court means DHS may have to issue new rules with public comment, or prove willfulness case by case. Both would slow enforcement. Little money is at stake directly, since DHS has collected only about $1.2 million[9][17].
Frames it asThe law fines only 'willful' refusal to leave, so the plaintiffs say the government must first ask whether each person's stay was deliberate[4][5]. Their lawyers say many people fined were following the rules, including some lawfully applying for immigration relief[4]. Some people cannot leave because no country will take them, or they lack travel papers. The plaintiffs argue that fines of up to $1.8 million on low-income people are 'grossly disproportionate' to the violation[11]. They compare it to a court issuing a judgment without hearing the defendant.
WhyTo cancel debts that would ruin them financially and to force an individual hearing before any fine is imposed[4][13].
Impact on themThe judge found the plaintiffs live in an 'economically precarious position' and that collecting the fines would likely leave them insolvent[13]. If the ruling stands, tens of thousands of people could be freed from debts that hang over them even when they are not being collected[2][7].
Frames it asThese groups say the program revived a 'long-dormant' provision. They say the first Trump administration used it and the Biden administration rescinded it[2][4]. To them, fining people on blank forms, without the public comment the law requires, is a basic failure of government process, whatever one thinks of immigration policy[1][4].
WhyTo limit enforcement tools that they argue punish their clients, and to win a ruling that applies to the whole class rather than one person at a time[4].
Impact on themThe Immigrant Legal Resource Center is itself a plaintiff[2]. Advocacy groups have filed related cases, including a Maryland suit over $5,000 fees[18].
Frames it asPeople who stay after a judge orders them out are breaking the law. Fining them is a mild, lawful consequence compared with detention[9][10]. Supporters see the ruling as a judge standing in the way of a law Congress passed, and note that the court faulted DHS's procedure (forms and rulemaking), not Congress's authority to fine[1][5].
WhyTo keep pressure on unauthorized migrants to leave, and to push back on what they see as court interference with immigration enforcement[9][10].
Impact on themIf the program stays halted, they lose an enforcement tool they see as low-cost. An appeal would keep the issue in the news.
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.1
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reuters | U.S./international center wire | 2 | US judge blocks Trump policy of fining migrants up to $1.8 million | Mostly straight. It gives both the $1.8 million maximum and DHS's 103,000-fines figure, and notes O'Toole is a Clinton appointee. It leads with the maximum fine in the headline, which is the plaintiffs' framing rather than the typical fine. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 3 | Immigrants fined up to $1.8 million for remaining in US sue Trump administration | This covered the November 2025 filing, not the ruling. The framing is fairly neutral and leans heavily on the plaintiffs' lawyers ('ruinous civil fines'). No Fox coverage of the October 5 ruling turned up in our searches. |
| The Washington Times | U.S. right | 4 | DHS has issued $84 billion in fines to illegal immigrants who won't go home | 'Won't go home' assumes the willful refusal that the lawsuit disputes. It does report the $1.2 million collected, which undercuts the headline number. |
| TRT World | Turkish state | 4 | US federal judge blocks Trump administration's $1.8m fines on undocumented migrants | It is built on Reuters facts. 'Undocumented' flattens a group that, according to the plaintiffs, includes people with pending applications for legal relief. It fits a wider pattern of covering U.S. immigration enforcement critically. |
| Astig.ph | Philippine diaspora-focused | 4 | A US judge just blocked $1.8 million fines on migrants. Here is what it means for Filipinos | It frames the story as a service piece for one diaspora. It is useful to its readers, but the $1.8 million maximum is in the headline, not the typical fine. |
| Breitbart | U.S. right (populist) | 5 | DHS Fines 103K Illegal Migrants a Total of $84 Billion | It repeats DHS's figures as an achievement, with the label 'illegal migrants.' It gives no context on how little has been collected or on the pending legal challenge. |
| Dagens | European aggregator | 7 | Federal judge puts the brakes on Trump's plan: Freezes billions of dollars after seeing evidence of breaking the law | 'Freezes billions of dollars' treats $84 billion in mostly uncollected fines as frozen money, when about $1.2 million has been collected. 'Evidence of breaking the law' turns a procedural ruling into what sounds like a finding of wrongdoing. |
References
- US judge blocks Trump policy of fining migrants up to $1.8 million — Reuters · International wire service; commercially owned by Thomson Reuters; center
- Maria L. v. Noem 1:25-cv-13471 (D. Mass.) — Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse · University of Michigan Law School case database; summaries are drawn from filings
- Maria L. v. Mullin — Public Justice · Plaintiffs' counsel; progressive public-interest litigation nonprofit
- Civil Fines Lawsuit press release (Nov. 20, 2025) — The Legal Aid Society · Plaintiffs' counsel; New York legal-aid nonprofit, immigrant-rights advocate
- 8 U.S. Code § 1324d - Civil penalties for failure to depart — Cornell Legal Information Institute · Primary source: federal statute text
- Imposition and Collection of Civil Penalties for Certain Immigration-Related Violations — Federal Register · Primary source: official U.S. government publication
- DHS Announces More Than $84 Billion in Civil Fines Issued to Illegal Aliens — U.S. Department of Homeland Security · Primary source; party to the case, advocates for the policy
- Immigration Enforcement Fines for Immigrants with Final Removal Orders — Congressional Research Service · Nonpartisan research arm of Congress
- DHS has issued $84 billion in fines to illegal immigrants who won't go home — The Washington Times · U.S. conservative newspaper
- DHS Fines 103K Illegal Migrants a Total of $84 Billion — Breitbart · U.S. populist right
- Immigrants fined up to $1.8 million for remaining in US sue Trump administration — Fox News · U.S. right-leaning cable network
- US federal judge blocks Trump administration's $1.8m fines on undocumented migrants — TRT World · Turkish state broadcaster
- US judge blocks Trump policy of fining migrants up to $1.8 million — Reuters · International wire service; copy carried by the Pakistani daily The Express Tribune
- Federal judge puts the brakes on Trump's plan: Freezes billions of dollars after seeing evidence of breaking the law — Dagens · European commercial news aggregator
- A US judge just blocked $1.8 million fines on migrants. Here is what it means for Filipinos — Astig.ph · Philippine diaspora-focused digital outlet
- Trump plans to fine migrants $998 a day for failing to leave after deportation order — NBC News · U.S. mainstream network, center-left
- DHS Issues $84 Billion in Civil Fines Against Immigrants in US — Bloomberg Tax · Business/legal trade press; center
- $5.1K fines for immigrants spark lawsuit in MD against Trump DHS — The Daily Record · Maryland legal and business newspaper; center