Arizona judge blocks Trump administration from deporting migrant Guatemalan and Honduran children

A federal judge in Arizona on Thursday temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from immediately deporting dozens of Guatemalan and Honduran children who arrived in the United States without a parent or guardian. U.S. District Judge Rosemary Márquez in Tucson granted a preliminary injunction, citing concerns about the steps the government had taken to deport the children. “The foundation of Defendants’ argument for their authority to transport Plaintiffs out of the United States is that Defendants are reuniting Plaintiff Children with parents abroad, but counsel could not identify a single instance of coordination between a parent and any government—American or Guatemalan,” she wrote.

The ruling extends the protection for the children living in shelters or foster care after Márquez issued a temporary restraining order over Labor Day weekend. The order was meant to keep the children from being removed until at least Sept. 26. The lawsuit was filed by the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project on behalf of 57 Guatemalan children and another 12 from Honduras between the ages 3 and 17. The White House did not immediately respond to an email from The Associated Press requesting comment.

The dispute centers on how quickly the government sought to deport the children and what protections they should receive before any removal occurs. Last month, the administration notified shelters where migrant children traveling alone typically reside after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border that they would be returned to Guatemala and that they must be ready to depart within hours. Several children had already boarded planes in Texas on the morning of Aug. 31 and were prepared to fly back, according to the court filing.

The Arizona lawsuit asks the court to ensure the children have the opportunity to present their cases and have access to legal counsel. It also seeks a placement decision for each child in the least restrictive setting that is in the child’s best interests, rather than immediate removal from the United States.

Officials for the Trump administration have defended the policy as a means to reunite children with families abroad and argue that doing so serves the best interests of the minors, with cooperation from the Guatemalan government. In a related but separate case filed in Washington state, plaintiffs have raised similar concerns about haste and due process in the handling of unaccompanied migrant children.

The administration has emphasized that the goal is to reunite families and ensure due process, while critics say the policies risk returning children to potentially dangerous or unsuitable circumstances without sufficient legal recourse. The injunction by Márquez does not settle the broader legal questions but temporarily halts immediate deportations as the cases move forward in federal court.

There is no immediate indication of when the court will hold further proceedings or issue a more lasting decision, but the injunction maintains the status quo while the suit proceeds. The White House's position and the government's next steps remain under judicial review, with advocates noting that the ruling underscores the due-process protections that should accompany actions involving unaccompanied minors.

The case sits at the intersection of immigration policy, child welfare, and federal due-process requirements, illustrating how rapidly shifting enforcement priorities can collide with court-ordered protections. As the legal process unfolds, the fate of dozens of children who traveled north seeking asylum or refuge will remain in limbo, with attorneys for the families arguing that every child deserves a fair hearing and access to counsel before any removal occurs.