A federal judge in Boston has blocked a policy that levied massive civil penalties against migrants who failed to leave the U.S. following deportation orders.. U.S. District Judge George O'Toole ruled that the Department of Homeland Security's approach violated administrative laws and risked immediate financial collapse for those targeted.

Advertisement

The $84 billion weight of DHS fine notices

Since 2022, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has issued more than 103,000 fine notices, according to the report . These penalties, which collectively amount to approximately $84 billion, were part of a policy that applied a $998 daily fine to any migrant remaining in the United States after receiving a final deportation order. Because the policy could be applied retroactively for up to five years, the maximum penalty an individual could face reached roughly $1.8 million .

Judge George O'Toole noted that these exorbitant penalties would likely push plaintiffs into immediate financial insolvency. The Immigrant Legal Resource Centre, which filed the class-action lawsuit alongside two migrants, argued that the fines were intended to coerce individuals into paying large sums or abandoning their residency in the country. The court observed that these individuals were already in economically precarious positions before the government imposed these massive financial burdens.

Administrative Procedure Act violations in Boston

The ruling by Judge O'Toole found that the Department of Homeland Security violated the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to provide specific allegations to justify the financial punishments. As reported by the source, the administrtaion also breached federal rulemaking requirements by failing to allow the public an opportunity to review or comment on these polcy changes before they were implemented.

Enforcement of these rules became even more aggressive in July 2025, when the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice accelerated the process by eliminating the 30-day notice period and curtailing the ability to appeal. furthermore, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) reportedly used standardized boilerplate paperwork that failed to distinguish whether a migrant's failure to depart was "willful" or "voluntary."

A revival of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform Act

While the statutory authority to impose such civil penalties exists under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, no previous administration had utilized these specific fines until the recent revival of the policy. This shift represents a significant change in how the Department of Homeland Security manages non-compliance with removal orders, moving from traditional deportation methods to heavy monetary sanctions.

The decision to use these specific legal tools has created a sharp divide in Washington.. While the Republican National Committee has reaffirmed its opposition to civil penalties on non-citizens, the Democratic Party has called for a comprehensive review of how the Department of Homeland Security handles its enforcement procedures.

Will the Supreme Court weigh in on DHS authority?

The legal battle now moves toward a potential review by the United States Supreme Court, which could decide the ultimate scope of administrative agencies' power. A central question remains whether the Department of Homeland Security has the constitutional authority to impose such massive monetary sanctions through administrative agencies without more rigorous public oversight.

It also remains unverified how the government intends to address the procedural flaws identified by Judge O'Toole. Specifically, it is unclear if the Department of Homeland Security will attempt to reform its "boilerplate" paperwork to properly distinguish between willful and voluntary non-departure, or if the entire enforcement mechanism will be dismntled during the appeals process.