ICE Deports Chanthila Souvannarath Despite Federal TRO, Court Order

(ARAB, ALABAMA) U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported Chanthila Souvannarath to Laos on October 25, 2025, two days after a federal judge issued an order explicitly prohibiting his removal, setting off a storm of criticism from civil rights groups and immigration lawyers who say the agency defied the court and violated his rights. Souvannarath, 44, who most recently lived in Arab, Alabama, had told the court he is a U.S. citizen and sought release from custody ahead of the removal that government lawyers and a senior Department of Homeland Security official have defended as lawful.

The deportation followed months of detention at Camp 57, an immigration holding facility inside the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola, where he was taken into custody on June 18, 2025, during an annual check-in with immigration authorities. Two of his five children were present when officers detained him, according to his wife, Beatrice Souvannarath. The removal to Laos—where advocates say he had never set foot—has become a flashpoint over whether the government can remove someone with a pending U.S. citizenship claim after a court order said not to.

In an order issued on October 23, 2025, Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana barred ICE from removing him, citing “irreparable harm that would be caused by immediate deportation.” The temporary restraining order followed a habeas petition that Souvannarath filed on his own while detained, arguing that he derived U.S. citizenship as a child through his father, a native of Laos who later naturalized and, according to the filing, obtained sole custody. Two days later, ICE deported him to Laos anyway, igniting a legal and political fight over the limits of executive power and the protection of alleged citizens from deportation.

“This should shock the nation. The deportation of an individual with a substantial claim to U.S. citizenship represents a catastrophic failure of the immigration system and a flagrant violation of constitutional rights,”

said Nora Ahmed, legal director of the ACLU of Louisiana. Civil rights lawyers say the case underscores repeated warnings that people with plausible citizenship claims can be swept into detention and removed without adequate safeguards, especially when they lack mandatory legal representation in civil immigration proceedings.

“ICE just ignored a federal court order and tore yet another family apart. This administration has shown it will ignore the courts, ignore the Constitution and ignore the law to pursue its mass deportation agenda, even if it means destroying the lives of American citizens,”

said Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana. Odoms and other advocates called the ICE deportation of Souvannarath an extreme breach of judicial authority that demands immediate corrective action.

The Department of Homeland Security has disputed that characterization. Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS assistant secretary, said the court’s restraining order “was not served” to ICE until after Souvannarath was already on a plane to Laos. She added, “Souvannarath had no right to be in this country,” and dismissed his U.S. citizenship claim as a “Hail Mary attempt” to remain in the United States, adding, “criminal illegal aliens lie all the time.” Her comments laid out the government’s position that the removal was lawful and consistent with prior immigration rulings in his case.

Represented by no lawyer at the time of filing, Souvannarath had petitioned the federal court for recognition of citizenship and release. The petition set out his life history: born in a refugee camp in Thailand, he entered the United States before his first birthday and became a lawful permanent resident. He says he derived citizenship as a minor after his father naturalized and was awarded sole custody, a path recognized under U.S. law when specific criteria are met. His supporters argue the claim is serious enough that removal before the court ruled on it violated both the letter and spirit of the judge’s order.

“ICE defied a federal court order by deporting Chanthila on Friday. This should alarm everyone. Federal agencies cannot simply ignore the other branches of government. ICE—like every other federal and state enforcement agency—is bound by the orders of the court. We call for the immediate return of Mr. Souvannarath and for ICE to be held accountable for his flagrantly illegal removal,”

said Bridget Pranzatelli, a staff attorney at the National Immigration Project. The group has joined the ACLU of Louisiana and RFK Human Rights in exploring litigation to reverse the removal and seek accountability.

“Mr. Souvannarath’s case isn’t just about the federal government ignoring a court order. It’s about a chaotic system of mass detention that subjects people to abuse behind bars and unjust deportation,”

said Sarah Gillman, director of Strategic U.S. Litigation at RFK Human Rights. Advocates point to Camp 57 inside Angola prison as an example of why they believe the system is broken. The facility is housed within a maximum-security complex described by activists as “notorious” and “isolated,” with a history as a former slave plantation and a reputation for harsh conditions that they say are unsuitable for civil immigration detainees.

For his family in Alabama, the legal fight has translated into months of uncertainty and sudden separation. “the hardest two months of my life,” said his wife, Beatrice Souvannarath, describing how two of their five children watched as officers took their father into custody in June. She called him a “hard worker and loving father who stayed out of trouble since his run-ins with the law two decades ago. He doesn’t even drink.” Since the removal, the family has struggled to communicate and to understand what comes next while he is reportedly detained in Laos.

Government records cited by DHS indicate that Souvannarath has past criminal convictions. He was convicted of assault and unlawful possession of a firearm in King County, Washington, in 2004, and an immigration court ordered his removal in 2006. DHS says he lost his green card and “had no right to be in this country,” a claim that clashes directly with his assertion that he is a U.S. citizen and cannot be deported. The dispute highlights the high stakes of determining citizenship status accurately before removal, a point the judge appeared to acknowledge by issuing the restraining order warning of irreparable harm.

At the core is a complex question: whether Souvannarath’s claim to derivative citizenship through his father’s naturalization and sole custody meets the legal requirements. That question was before a federal judge when the removal occurred. Because U.S. citizens cannot be deported, advocates say any credible U.S. citizenship claim requires careful review and, in this case, demanded strict adherence to the judge’s temporary restraining order. The ACLU of Louisiana and allied groups argue that if the order was in effect before ICE executed the removal, the action violated the court’s authority regardless of later notice arguments.

The timeline is stark. He was taken into ICE custody on June 18, 2025. He filed a habeas petition asserting U.S. citizenship and seeking release. On October 23, 2025, Chief Judge Shelly D. Dick issued a temporary restraining order blocking removal and referencing the “irreparable harm” that immediate deportation would cause. On October 25, 2025, he was placed on a plane to Laos. DHS now maintains the order had not been served before departure, while advocates insist the order’s existence and clarity should have halted the removal. The facts of service and timing are likely to feature prominently in any forthcoming legal motions.

Meanwhile, Souvannarath is detained in Laos, a country his supporters say he had never visited before deportation. Laos is the country of his father’s birth and the nation to which the United States has now sent him, despite a life that began for him in a refugee camp in Thailand and unfolded almost entirely on American soil. For his wife and five children in Alabama, the immediate concern is his safety and the possibility of his return if courts ultimately agree he has a valid U.S. citizenship claim. For civil liberties groups, the broader question is whether a federal agency can remove someone in the face of an active court order and then argue about the timing later.

The ACLU of Louisiana, RFK Human Rights, and the National Immigration Project say they are investigating legal options to challenge ICE’s actions and secure his return. They have framed the case as both an individual crisis and a warning about system-wide risks, pointing to the lack of guaranteed legal representation in detention and the remote, restrictive nature of facilities like Camp 57. In their view, the ICE deportation of someone pressing a U.S. citizenship claim is a test of the rule of law and the willingness of federal agencies to submit to judicial oversight.

McLaughlin’s comments set up a sharp contrast between the government’s stance and that of advocacy groups. By describing the citizenship claim as a “Hail Mary attempt” and asserting that “criminal illegal aliens lie all the time,” she spotlighted the administration’s emphasis on prior convictions and an existing removal order. Advocates counter that the presence of old convictions does not answer the citizenship question; if a person is a U.S. citizen, they argue, removal is unlawful regardless of past criminal history. The legal teams are expected to ask a court to compel the government to facilitate Souvannarath’s return to the United States while the citizenship issue is resolved.

The dispute also shines a light on Angola and its Camp 57 facility, where Souvannarath was held before deportation. Advocates say the prison’s structure and isolation make it difficult for detainees to access counsel or gather documents necessary to support complicated claims like derivative citizenship. They note that immigration detention is civil, not criminal, yet the setting is a maximum-security prison whose history as a former slave plantation has long drawn scrutiny. That context has compounded criticism that people pursuing high-stakes legal claims are being kept far from families, lawyers, and courts.

As the legal wrangling intensifies, the human costs continue to mount. Beatrice Souvannarath described fear and confusion in her household since the June arrest, with school routines disrupted and two children haunted by the memory of watching their father taken away. The family’s supporters in Alabama say they are organizing help with childcare and legal costs, while the advocacy groups focus on court filings and potential oversight inquiries. For now, they say, the priority is to secure communication with Souvannarath in Laos and prevent further harm.

The government’s next steps are not yet public, but the stakes are clear. If a court finds that ICE violated the temporary restraining order, the fallout could include sanctions, orders to retrieve him, and renewed scrutiny of compliance protocols inside the agency. If courts accept DHS’s account of service timing, the case could still become a touchstone for how agencies handle live court orders when deportation flights are imminent. Either way, the outcome will reverberate far beyond a single case, because the dispute centers not just on one man’s fate, but on whether judicial directives can be set aside in the rush to remove.

The case has raised fresh concerns that wrongful detentions and deportations of U.S. citizens may occur when the system moves faster than courts can review complex claims. Advocates warn that without mandatory legal representation in immigration detention, the risk of errors increases, leaving people like Souvannarath to prepare filings on their own while in confinement. They say this creates a structural imbalance that can lead to irreversible outcomes—like an overseas removal—before a judge reaches the heart of a U.S. citizenship claim.

For those tracking policy and enforcement trends, the message from civil rights groups is blunt: if an agency can carry out a removal against the backdrop of a federal court’s explicit order, it sets a precedent that weakens the judiciary’s check on executive power. DHS rejects that framing, insisting process was followed and the person removed had long ago forfeited the right to remain in the country. That clash—over timing, over authority, and over the meaning of citizenship claims—will now move to the courts, where filings are expected to seek his immediate return and a finding that the removal was unlawful.

Souvannarath’s supporters say they are preparing for a drawn-out legal fight, even as they press for swift relief. They point to the judge’s own language about “irreparable harm” to argue that the urgency remains. The advocacy coalition has said it will pursue every available remedy, including emergency motions and requests that the government coordinate with its counterpart in Laos to facilitate his return to U.S. soil if the court so orders. The administration, through DHS, has indicated it will defend the process, the timing, and the finality of a removal order that dates back nearly two decades.

As both sides dig in, the family in Arab waits. The children ask when their father will be back. Lawyers trade filings and statements over a two-day window in October 2025 that could define the outcome of a U.S. citizenship claim—and the reach of a federal court’s word—long after the flight to Laos departed. For now, the case of Chanthila Souvannarath turns on a simple proposition that lawyers on both sides agree is bedrock: court orders matter. Whether that principle was honored or broken in this case is precisely what the next round of litigation aims to decide.

For official information on immigration enforcement and agency statements, see U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on the Department of Homeland Security website: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.