- A Boston judge blocked penalty assessments and collections against migrants accused of not leaving after final removal orders.
- The challenged fines accrued at $998 per day and could reach $1.8 million per person.
- The preliminary order pauses the disputed process while the class-action lawsuit continues; it does not decide the case.
A Boston federal judge barred the Trump administration from assessing or collecting civil penalties against migrants accused of remaining in the United States after final removal orders. The preliminary order, issued October 5, 2026, pauses the challenged practices while a class-action lawsuit moves forward.
Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. ruled in a case brought by two migrants and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center. The fines could reach $1.8 million for an individual.
Free toolUSCIS Receipt Number Decoder
The penalties accrued at $998 per day. The administration could apply them retroactively for as many as five years.
The order does not decide the underlying case. It temporarily stops the disputed system.
The judge questioned the notice process and the shortened chance to object
O’Toole found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that the government bypassed requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA. They argued that officials introduced a faster penalty procedure without first seeking public comment.
The judge also faulted the notices sent to migrants. Standardized wording, the plaintiffs argued, did not set out the individual facts showing that a person had “willingly” or “willfully” failed to leave.
The administration also removed a prior 30-day notice period and cut the time available to contest a penalty. Those procedural changes form part of the challenge before the court.
The judge said collecting the fines could drive the plaintiffs, whom he described as being in an “economically precarious position,” into insolvency. The financial exposure was not theoretical: the daily rate could build over years.
A 1996 law supplied the penalty authority the administration revived
The fines draw on a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, commonly known as IIRIRA. It permits civil penalties in certain cases involving a person under a final removal order who willingly fails to depart.
The Trump administration revived that authority in its second term. A January 2025 executive order, titled Protecting the American People Against Invasion, instructed the Department of Homeland Security to take steps to assess and collect penalties against unlawfully present migrants.
In July 2025, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice put a revised process in place. It eliminated the 30-day notice period and shortened the opportunity to challenge fines, changes the lawsuit contests.
The litigation therefore concerns both the government’s ability to use the penalty authority and the procedures it used to impose the charges. The court’s preliminary finding addresses the challenged process while the case continues.
The order pauses the challenged system but leaves other enforcement routes open
By July 2026, the Department of Homeland Security had issued more than 103,000 fines, with a combined value of approximately $84 billion, figures cited in coverage of the case. Those totals describe the reach of the penalty program; the judge’s order blocks the specific assessment and collection practices challenged in court.
The ruling does not necessarily erase every civil-penalty power available under federal immigration law. The government may argue on appeal that it can impose penalties using procedures that satisfy the APA and provide individualized due process.
O’Toole’s decision came from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, within the First Circuit. It is not a Supreme Court ruling or a nationwide appellate precedent. The class-action order may protect the certified plaintiff class while the litigation proceeds.
The case will continue to test whether the government can use a revised process that addresses the court’s concerns. Any future penalties would still face the requirement for individualized procedures described in the ruling.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
