Judge Halts Fast-Track Immigrant Fines

Boston — A federal judge has stopped the Trump administration from enforcing a rule that fast-tracked civil fines on immigrants who did not leave the United States after being ordered to, part of a campaign the government says has produced more than $84 billion in fines.

Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. of the U.S. District Court in Boston suspended the rule behind the fines and blocked enforcement of fines issued after it took effect, in an order dated 30 September that was reported on 6 October by Bloomberg Law. He found the rule likely conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act, the main federal immigration law, and that immigration officials failed to consider the individual circumstances of the people they fined.

What the fines are

Federal immigration law has long allowed the government to fine a person who has been ordered removed from the country and fails to leave. A civil fine is a money penalty, not a criminal charge. According to Bloomberg Law, the power sat unused until President Trump's first term, and in the past year the fines have been issued at an unprecedented scale as part of a wider immigration crackdown.

The penalties run up to $998 for each day a person stays and often total close to $1.8 million per person, according to Public Justice, one of the groups that brought the case. The Department of Homeland Security said in July that it had issued more than 103,000 fines totalling $84 billion, Bloomberg Law reported; Public Justice counts more than $84 billion since January 2025. The order covers fines issued after the rule took effect. The government has sued people to collect, seized their tax refunds and sent debts to collection agencies.

In 2025 Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, issued what is called an interim final rule: a regulation an agency puts into force right away, before the public has a chance to comment, with the promise of finalizing it later. The rule streamlined how ICE imposes the fines. The lawsuit argues that skipping the usual notice-and-comment process broke the Administrative Procedure Act, the federal law that sets out how agencies must make rules, and that the fines also violate constitutional protections.

The people who sued

The case, Maria L. v. Mullin, was brought by two immigrants, allowed by the court to use pseudonyms, and by the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a national advocacy group. Maria L. lives in Massachusetts and Nancy M. in Florida. Their lawyers say both stayed in touch with immigration authorities and followed the legal paths open to them, yet faced penalties ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars up to $1.8 million.

The judge noted that "both named plaintiffs have remained in the country to pursue immigration relief that would allow them to obtain lawful status," and that one has since been approved for an immigrant visa and admitted as a lawful permanent resident, the legal status often called a green card, according to Public Justice.

What the order does

The order is a stay, which means it puts the rule on hold while the lawsuit continues rather than striking it down for good. It covers the rule itself and all fines issued under it after 27 June 2025, so the government cannot enforce those fines for now, the plaintiffs' lawyers said. They called it a victory for immigrants nationwide.

"These fines are being assessed against people doing exactly what the law requires — seeking lawful immigration relief and complying with immigration authorities," said Hasan Shafiqullah, a supervising attorney at the Legal Aid Society in New York, one of the firms representing the plaintiffs. "The court correctly recognized that the government cannot impose devastating financial penalties in violation of the law."

The order does not decide whether the fines are unconstitutional. The plaintiffs also argue that the fines are imposed without fair notice or a real chance to contest them, violating the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process; that they are excessive fines barred by the Eighth Amendment; and that the Seventh Amendment entitles people facing such penalties to a jury. Those claims remain to be decided.

The plaintiffs are represented by Public Justice, the Legal Aid Society, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, the NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic, the Free Migration Project and the law firm Covington & Burling.

What happens next

The lawsuit goes on with the stay in place. The Justice Department, which represents the government, could ask a higher court to lift the order.