A federal judge in Los Angeles has ordered the Department of Homeland Security to stop using what he described as “blatantly coercive” language to pressure unaccompanied immigrant children into leaving the United States. The ruling halts a practice where the DHS advised immigrant children to self-deport by warning them that the alternative was long-term detention.
U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald ruled on Monday that these advisals violated a 40-year-old court order designed to protect the due process rights of minors. The permanent injunction, established decades ago, explicitly bans immigration agents from pressuring unaccompanied children—those entering the country without a parent or legal guardian—to abandon their asylum claims and voluntarily depart.
The court found that the government’s recent tactics mirrored the very abuses the original 1980s lawsuit sought to eliminate. By presenting self-deportation as the only way to avoid indefinite confinement, the government effectively stripped vulnerable children of their right to seek legal protection.
The ‘Choice’ Presented to Minors
According to court documents, the DHS began using these advisals last September. The government presented the children with two starkly different paths, often delivering the information verbally during the critical first 72 hours of their detention.
Children were told that if they chose to return to their home countries, they would face no administrative consequences and could potentially apply for a visa in the future. But, those who expressed fear of returning home or requested a hearing before an immigration judge were told they could expect to be held in a detention facility for a “prolonged period of time.”
The pressure extended beyond the children themselves. The advisals warned minors that if their sponsors in the U.S. Lacked legal immigration status, those adults would be subject to arrest and removal, and could face criminal prosecution for aiding an illegal entry.
| Option: Voluntary Departure | Option: Pursuing Legal Claim |
|---|---|
| No immediate administrative consequences | Potential for “prolonged” detention |
| Possibility of future visa application | Risk of sponsor arrest and removal |
| Immediate return to home country | Potential criminal prosecution for sponsors |
A 40-Year Legal Precedent
Judge Fitzgerald noted that the current threats “disturbingly mirror” the testimony of Jose Antonio Perez-Funez, the plaintiff in a landmark 1980s class-action lawsuit. In 1985, Perez-Funez, who was 16 at the time of his arrest near the Mexican border, testified that he agreed to self-deport to El Salvador only as federal officers told him he would face lengthy detention if he refused.
That case established essential due process safeguards, ensuring that unaccompanied children have the right to consult with an attorney or a relative before signing away their right to pursue legal protection. In his ruling, Judge Fitzgerald stated that the government was already on notice that such tactics were inappropriate, writing, “The Government was thus already on notice that such a statement delivered in this environment is precisely the kind of inappropriate persuasion the Injunction sought to prevent.”
The judge as well rejected a separate request by the federal government to eliminate these permanent court-mandated safeguards entirely, keeping the Perez-Funez protections in place.
The Government’s Defense
In a statement provided by an unnamed spokesperson, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) maintained that the agency is following the law and prioritizing the safety of children. The agency argued that the advisal documents are necessary to ensure minors understand their legal options.
“Many unaccompanied minors are brought to the border by smugglers and face real risks of exploitation, which is why providing a clear, lawful advisal is essential,” the CBP statement read. “It ensures they understand their rights and options — and for many who were trafficked or coerced, returning home to their family is the safest path.”
However, the court highlighted the extreme vulnerability of children during the window before they are transferred from DHS custody to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). While federal law requires the ORR to provide legal consultations within 10 days of arrival, the coercive advisals occurred well before that window. Judge Fitzgerald wrote that It’s “difficult to imagine a scenario more coercive” than the one faced by children in the first 72 hours of custody, many of whom are unaware of their basic legal rights.
Impact on Vulnerable Populations
The human cost of these tactics emerged in declarations submitted to the court. One minor, identified as D.A.T.M., stated that the threats of long-term detention and the potential prosecution of their parents coerced them into signing voluntary departure papers.
Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney with the pro bono firm Public Counsel who helped secure the original 1986 order, described the DHS’s shift in language as a “war on children — the most vulnerable population.” Rosenbaum noted that his team only discovered the change in advisals after a government attorney announced the agency’s intent to seek an end to the court-mandated safeguards in November.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
The federal government has until Thursday to decide whether it will appeal Judge Fitzgerald’s ruling. Moving forward, Rosenbaum stated that his legal team aims to implement more aggressive monitoring of unaccompanied children’s cases to prevent future violations of their due process rights.
We invite readers to share their thoughts on this ruling in the comments below or share this story on social media to keep the conversation going.
