A federal judge in Maryland has found the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in contempt for deporting an asylum-seeker to El Salvador despite three prior court orders blocking his removal. U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher issued the ruling on September 25, mandating that the government return the individual—identified in court documents as E.L.A.—to the United States while his asylum claim is processed.
The contempt ruling follows two prior deportations of E.L.A. in violation of court orders. According to court filings, E.L.A. was deported on September 1 after initially being allowed to return to the U.S. on August 7, where he was detained for weeks before being wrongfully removed a second time. The government has stated in court documents that E.L.A. does not wish to return to the U.S., though it confirmed it would facilitate his return if he chose to do so.
Judge Gallagher’s latest order requires both parties to provide an update on E.L.A.’s return by October 2. The case stems from a 2019 class-action lawsuit protecting the asylum rights of immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as unaccompanied minors. The government admitted in court filings that at least 107 individuals protected by the settlement—including 54 confirmed class members and 53 flagged as potentially protected—were deported before their asylum claims were resolved.
Background and Legal Context
The lawsuit, filed in 2019, sought to prevent the deportation of unaccompanied minors who had active asylum claims. In 2024, the government agreed to a settlement prohibiting the removal of class members until their asylum cases were fully processed. Despite this agreement, E.L.A. and others were deported, with the government attributing some removals to failures in flagging names in ICE systems.
Government Response and Legal Arguments
In a court filing, DHS argued that it cannot compel E.L.A. to return and that multiple flights operate weekly between El Salvador and the U.S. The agency maintained that it had complied with the court’s orders by offering to bring E.L.A. back, but his refusal to do so limited its ability to enforce the ruling. The judge’s sealed opinion, issued on July 29, found that the government had violated the terms of the 2024 settlement by deporting protected individuals.
Ongoing Legal and Policy Implications
The case highlights ongoing tensions between immigration enforcement and judicial oversight of asylum protections. Judge Gallagher’s rulings underscore the judiciary’s role in enforcing compliance with legal agreements, while the government’s actions reflect broader challenges in immigration enforcement systems. The outcome of E.L.A.’s asylum case and the government’s response may set precedents for similar cases involving protected immigrants.