Parents who were torn from their kids at the border under former President Trump are back in detention or out of the country, despite a court settlement that was supposed to shield them, the ACLU told a federal judge in San Diego this week.
In a filing in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, the group said at least two dozen parents who had been separated from their children at the U.S.-Mexico border during Trump’s first term have since been detained again or deported. Those parents, the ACLU argued, were supposed to be protected under a 2023 settlement that promised a path to reunification, parole, work permits, and legal help.
According to NBC 7 San Diego, the ACLU told the court on Thursday that at least 25 people who were separated from family members while seeking asylum have been re-detained at ICE check-ins or removed from the country. ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said the group initially believed the issue affected a few hundred families, but “they've since learned it happened to at least 6,000 families,” adding, “These are families that have not yet gotten over the trauma of losing their little children, and now they're being thrown in detention again.” The ACLU asked the judge to order the government to explain why people covered by the settlement were re-detained or deported.
What the settlement promised
The class-action agreement in Ms. L. v. ICE, approved in 2023, was supposed to do more than offer apologies. It was designed to give separated parents and children defined routes to reunification, legal assistance, and immigration relief. As outlined by the Health and Human Services, the deal created pathways for class members to apply for temporary parole and employment authorization for an initial 36-month period with the chance to renew. It also waived certain USCIS filing fees for covered applications, promised targeted legal support, and established special procedures for asylum review for people in the class.
Enforcement fight has a long history
That written promise has kept lawyers busy. Plaintiffs have repeatedly returned to court, arguing the government has not provided the required legal services or timely notices, and that some class members were removed despite the settlement’s protections. The Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse’s case summary describes a series of enforcement motions and orders in 2024-2025, including rulings that forced the government to fund service providers and to give notice when class members are detained or removed.
Government response and the fee dispute
Government lawyers, for their part, told the judge that the settlement does not flatly prohibit detentions or removals and that the Department of Homeland Security has discretion to end parole. On that reading, the recent re-detentions are lawful and consistent with the agreement.
The government also argued that fee increases enacted in the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” are new charges that fall outside the settlement’s fee-waiver protections. In the same vein, officials said a previously streamlined three-year parole-and-work-authorization term now requires annual reapplication and that this procedural shift is within the law and the terms of the deal.
What’s next
The ACLU has asked the court to settle the fight over fees and reapplications and to require a clear explanation for why some covered parents were re-detained or removed. The judge did not rule immediately.
With the case still active on the Southern District docket and a track record of enforcement motions and appellate filings, the next order in Ms. L. could have real consequences for how parole, fee waivers, and family reunification are handled from here on out.
