A federal judge has put the brakes on one of the Trump administration’s toughest tools for dealing with illegal immigrants who refuse to leave the country—even after receiving final deportation orders.
The reason is striking.
U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr., a Bill Clinton appointee, blocked the administration’s current civil-penalty program Monday after finding that migrants could face devastating financial consequences from fines imposed for remaining in the United States after they were ordered removed.
Under federal immigration law, the government can impose civil penalties of up to $998 per day on individuals who fail to depart after receiving a final removal order.
The Trump administration began using that authority aggressively.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, more than 103,000 penalties totaling roughly $84 billion had been issued since President Donald Trump returned to office in January 2025. Because some penalties were applied retroactively, individual fines reached as high as $1.8 million.
That was apparently too much for O’Toole.
In a class-action lawsuit brought by migrants who received the penalties, the judge ordered the administration to halt the program while the legal challenge proceeds.
And his explanation focused heavily on what those fines could do to the plaintiffs’ finances.
“The plaintiffs live in an economically precarious position even without the imposition of the government's exorbitant fines,” O’Toole wrote.
The judge also warned that the penalties could lead to wage garnishment and potentially push individuals into insolvency.
One plaintiff cited in the ruling, identified as Nancy M., reportedly works more than 60 hours a week across two jobs. O’Toole said she experienced “serious anxiety” over the penalties after DHS assessed her more than $1.8 million.
There is an important legal distinction here.
O’Toole did not strike down the federal government’s statutory authority to impose the fines. Instead, he found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on arguments that the administration had not adequately determined whether individual failures to depart were willful or voluntary and that the government adopted its streamlined enforcement procedures without the public notice and comment required under the Administrative Procedure Act.
In other words, the fight is not over whether immigration penalties can exist. The immediate question is whether the administration followed the proper legal procedures in implementing this particular enforcement system.
For the Trump administration, that distinction matters.
The case demonstrates just how difficult it can be to enforce immigration law even after a person has received a final order of removal. A statute can authorize a penalty, an administration can attempt to enforce it, and a federal court can still step in when procedural or constitutional questions arise.
And there is an irony sitting right in the middle of this fight.
For migrants who have received final removal orders, there is already another option: leave voluntarily.
The Department of Homeland Security has offered certain eligible illegal immigrants $2,600 plus travel assistance to voluntarily self-deport through the CBP Home app.
That creates a remarkably simple choice on paper: leave with government assistance, or remain in the country after a final removal order and potentially face enforcement consequences.
Yet the legal battle over the fines shows that even seemingly straightforward immigration enforcement can become tangled in federal court.
The Trump administration has made clear that immigration enforcement is not supposed to be an optional suggestion. Final removal orders are meant to mean something.
Whether the government ultimately prevails in this particular fight will depend on the courts and the legal issues surrounding the program. But the broader question is impossible to avoid: if a final deportation order can be ignored without meaningful consequences, what exactly makes it final?
That is the accountability question now sitting squarely in the middle of America's immigration debate.
