Lawsuit Seeks to Halt Deportation of Twelve Honduran Children

(UNITED STATES) The Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project has filed a preemptive lawsuit to stop the deportation of a dozen Honduran children who are in federal custody, asking a court to keep them in the United States while their cases move forward. FIRRP amended its complaint in late August 2025, saying the children told attorneys they don’t want to return to Honduras and that some have parents already living in the country.

The case arrives days after a federal judge temporarily blocked the removal of 76 Guatemalan children over Labor Day weekend, ordering they remain for at least two weeks so a court can hear their claims.

Case overview and immediate stakes

FIRRP’s filing seeks three basic protections:

1. A chance for each child to present their case before an immigration judge.
2. Access to legal counsel.
3. Placement in the least restrictive setting that meets the child’s best interests.

The group’s lawyers argue those steps are the minimum to prevent wrongful deportations and to ensure safety for children who may face harm if returned. The case highlights how fast-moving removal actions can collide with the rights of children who often lack a lawyer and a full hearing.

Government attorneys counter that federal law allows the Department of Health and Human Services to “repatriate” or reunite certain children with family in their home countries if strict standards are met. According to Justice Department filings, the government can proceed only when:

• A child has not been a victim of “severe” trafficking.
• The child is not at risk upon return.
• The child does not face a credible fear of persecution.
• The child has no pending asylum claim.

Officials say those legal thresholds are designed to protect children while also permitting safe return when protection isn’t warranted.

The earlier order protecting the Guatemalan children—who were unaccompanied minors living in shelters or foster care—set a near-term template: pause removals long enough to let the courts review. Attorneys working with the Honduran children are asking for similar relief, saying the same due process concerns apply.

For families, that pause can be the difference between permanent separation and a chance to reunite—especially when a parent is already inside the United States.

Legal arguments and wider implications

The dispute centers on:

• How quickly the government may move to deport children from Central America.
• How much review is required before removal.

FIRRP’s case is part of ongoing litigation challenging expedited deportations of minors. Advocates warn that a rush to repatriate risks sending children back into danger without a true chance to explain what happened to them. Common barriers include:

• Language gaps
• Trauma
• Absence of counsel during key moments

Government lawyers maintain that the law sets clear rules and that agencies follow those rules, including screening for trafficking and persecution risks.

Recent cases illustrate the stakes. In April 2025, a separate matter involved the illegal deportation of three U.S. citizen children and their non-citizen relatives to Honduras, including a four-year-old with stage-four kidney cancer. Court filings in that case described breakdowns in consent and communication with lawyers, raising alarms about due process for vulnerable families.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed, then withdrew, a lawsuit in May concerning the removal of a Honduran mother and her U.S.-born child, while the Department of Homeland Security rejected claims it deported U.S. citizen children against their will.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, advocacy and legal aid groups have kept pressure on removal practices for mothers and children who fled violence in Central America, saying many never receive fair hearings. Those groups argue that children need a lawyer to:

• Make sense of asylum rules
• Gather and present evidence

Without counsel, even children with strong protection claims may be removed before a judge examines the facts.

Remedies sought and their significance

In this FIRRP case, the requested remedies are narrow but powerful:

• Insisting on a hearing before an immigration judge places a neutral decision-maker between the child and the plane home.
• Demanding access to counsel seeks to level a playing field where the government is always represented and the child often is not.
• Urging placement in the least restrictive setting asks that children be held in environments that focus on care rather than confinement.

Federal law assigns care of unaccompanied minors to HHS and requires safety assessments before reunification or repatriation. Government attorneys say those checks already consider trafficking, risk of harm, and credible fear, and that removal does not proceed when any red flag appears. FIRRP replies that real-world practice can fall short—especially when deadlines, facility space, and case backlogs push agencies to act faster than the facts allow.

Potential outcomes and broader effects

The court’s decision could shape near-term policy:

• If the judge grants a restraining order similar to the Guatemalan case, agencies may need to slow or pause removals of the Honduran children while immigration courts evaluate each claim.
• If the request is denied, FIRRP may appeal, and other legal aid groups could bring similar suits on behalf of children from El Salvador, Guatemala, or Honduras.
• Each ruling adds to a patchwork of orders that, taken together, guide how quickly the government can act in children’s cases.

For parents in the United States, the uncertainty is crushing. Examples:

• A father with Temporary Protected Status may be waiting for a sponsorship check while his daughter sits in a shelter across the country.
• A mother may be trying to find a lawyer before a scheduled transfer that could lead to removal.

The difference between a week and a month can decide whether a family reunites or ends up separated by borders and time.

The policy debate reaches beyond the courtroom. Advocacy groups are pushing for clearer rules that guarantee a lawyer for every child and a judge’s review before any repatriation. Government officials warn that blanket delays could strain shelters and slow placements for children who do not qualify for protection. Both sides claim to serve the best interests of the child, yet they part ways over how to balance speed, safety, and fairness.

Practical steps for families and sponsors

Practical steps exist for families and sponsors trying to help:

• Keep records of any threats, police reports, or medical reports that show risk if a child returns.
• Seek counsel early, even before a transfer.
• Track hearing dates and custody status.
• Ask case managers about placements that fit the child’s needs.

For background on how federal care works for unaccompanied children, see the HHS Office of Refugee Resettlement’s program page at Office of Refugee Resettlement — Unaccompanied Children.

What to watch next

The coming weeks will show whether courts extend the pause they granted to the Guatemalan children to these Honduran children. With fall dockets filling up, judges may face more requests to stop removals while claims move forward.

For the children at the center of this preemptive lawsuit, the immediate question is simple: Will they get a real chance to tell their story before a judge, with a lawyer by their side, and in a placement that puts their safety first? The answer will set the course for their futures—and could influence how the system treats the next child who arrives alone.

Important: Deadlines and court orders can change quickly. Families and sponsors should act promptly to preserve evidence, secure counsel, and monitor case status.