A federal judge has temporarily stopped the Trump administration from using a revived programme that could impose huge financial penalties on immigrants who remain in the United States after being ordered to leave.
U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. ruled that the Department of Homeland Security, known as DHS, likely acted unlawfully by issuing extremely large fines without properly considering whether each person had deliberately refused to leave the country.
The judge, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton, issued the stay on Wednesday. His decision blocks a rule introduced in June 2025 that allowed DHS to move more quickly when imposing fines on immigrants accused of failing to leave the United States. It also affects the way Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, has been issuing large numbers of these penalties.
According to reports, more than 65,000 fines have already been issued, with their combined value reaching around $36 billion.
The laws being used by the government allow fines in certain circumstances, including when a person deliberately refuses to follow a removal order or knowingly fails to leave by an agreed voluntary departure deadline.
However, Judge O’Toole found that the government’s system appeared to overlook an important part of the law — whether the person’s actions were actually deliberate or “willful.”
Under the new system, a person who remains in the United States after being ordered to leave can effectively be treated as having violated the law automatically. The individual then has to challenge the fine and explain why they should not be held responsible.
The judge raised concerns about the forms being used by ICE. He said they largely contained standard wording and checkboxes without clearly explaining why officials had decided that a particular immigrant had deliberately refused to leave.
The government was also unable to provide an example showing that an officer had reviewed a case and decided that someone’s failure to leave was not deliberate.
O’Toole pointed to the huge number of notices being issued as another reason for concern. Nearly 10,000 notices were reportedly sent out in only three months, raising questions about whether officials were genuinely examining each person’s individual circumstances before imposing the penalties.
The experiences of two immigrants involved in the legal challenge showed how serious the financial consequences could become.
One woman, identified as Nancy M., received a fine of approximately $1.82 million for allegedly deliberately failing to comply with immigration requirements. At the time, she was living in the United States under an order of supervision. She was later approved for an immigrant visa and eventually became a lawful permanent resident, commonly known as a green card holder.
Another woman, identified as Maria L., works as a nail technician. She was reportedly fined hundreds of thousands of dollars even while she was trying to obtain legal immigration status.
The judge also found that the Trump administration likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it introduced the rule without going through the normal public-comment process.
Government lawyers argued that the rule did not require that process because it involved foreign affairs and administrative procedures. However, O’Toole rejected that argument, saying the policy directly affects people who are already living inside the United States rather than simply dealing with America’s relationship with foreign governments.
Another major concern involved the amount of time immigrants were given to challenge the fines.
The new rule removed an earlier warning stage and reduced the period for appealing a fine from 30 days to just 15 days.
The judge described that change as essentially punitive. He noted that people receiving the notices may have to understand complicated legal language written in English, collect documents and other evidence, prepare their response and then send it by mail — all within a very short period.
O’Toole also considered the serious financial damage these penalties could cause before a case is finally resolved.
People facing the fines could potentially have their wages taken, lose property such as homes or vehicles, suffer damage to their credit or be pushed into serious financial difficulty. The judge said some of those consequences could not simply be reversed later, even if the fine itself was eventually cancelled.
For someone facing a penalty worth hundreds of thousands or even more than a million dollars, the financial pressure could be devastating long before a court reaches a final decision.
The judge concluded that temporarily stopping the new system would cause relatively little harm to the government because immigration authorities still have the ability to pursue appropriate fines using the procedures that existed before the June 2025 rule.
For now, the ruling puts the Trump administration’s tougher fine system on hold while the legal challenge continues.
