BOSTON — A federal judge has halted a Trump administration rule used to impose ICE fines reaching $1.8 million, finding the government likely bypassed required safeguards.

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. found that immigration officials appeared to impose penalties without adequately examining each person’s circumstances. He also found the administration likely violated federal law by putting the rule into effect without first allowing public comment.

The Sept. 30 ruling pauses the disputed rule and all fines issued under it while the lawsuit continues. However, it leaves the government’s underlying authority to impose lawful immigration penalties intact.

One plaintiff’s experience illustrates the dispute. According to the judge’s 20-page opinion, ICE assessed a $1.82 million fine against a woman who remained in the country under an order of supervision. She later received an immigrant visa and became a lawful permanent resident.

What the ICE fines ruling actually stops

The case, Maria L. v. Mullin, challenges a June 2025 regulation that accelerated the government’s process for issuing civil immigration penalties.

In a separate order, O’Toole stayed the regulation “and all fines issued thereunder” pending another court order.

That language extends the pause to existing fines issued through the challenged system. It reaches beyond a restriction on issuing new notices.

However, a stay temporarily suspends enforcement while a court considers the dispute. It does not permanently erase the affected debts, repeal the statutes authorizing penalties or cancel underlying deportation orders.

O’Toole also explained that the government could continue pursuing fines through the procedures that existed before the disputed rule. If the penalties ultimately survive judicial review, the government could seek collection later.

The ruling therefore provides immediate protection against enforcement of the affected fines while leaving their ultimate validity unresolved.

Why remaining in the country was not enough

Two federal statutes are central to the lawsuit. One addresses people who voluntarily fail to leave within a permitted voluntary-departure period. The other allows daily penalties for specified conduct after a final removal order, including a willful failure or refusal to depart.

Those requirements make a person’s circumstances relevant to whether a penalty is lawful.

Yet O’Toole found that the challenged process appeared to infer a violation from someone’s continued presence after a departure deadline. The recipient then had to challenge the fine through a shortened appeals process.

The government argued that it assessed cases individually. However, the judge said officials had not provided relevant details or examples showing that they considered someone’s circumstances and found the failure to leave was not willful or voluntary.

He also found that the forms used to assess ICE fines lacked specific allegations explaining why an individual’s conduct warranted a penalty.

At this preliminary stage, O’Toole concluded that the plaintiffs were likely to establish that the government had effectively disregarded the statutes’ requirements concerning intent.

The Legal Aid Society, which represents the plaintiffs, described the decision as preliminary relief against regulations the court found likely unlawful. The broader case remains active.

A $1.82 million fine while pursuing legal status

The two individual plaintiffs are identified in court records as Maria L. and Nancy M. They brought the case alongside the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

Maria, a Massachusetts nail technician, faced hundreds of thousands of dollars in penalties while pursuing humanitarian immigration relief. According to declarations summarized in the opinion, the fine worsened her anxiety and depression and contributed to her missing a month of work.

Meanwhile, Nancy, a Florida laborer working more than 60 hours a week across two jobs, faced approximately $1.82 million in penalties.

The court noted that Nancy was under an ICE order of supervision when officials issued and upheld the fine. She subsequently obtained an immigrant visa and admission as a lawful permanent resident.

Her experience helped illustrate why the judge considered individual review essential. A person’s continued presence after a removal order did not, by itself, answer whether the requirements for a civil penalty were satisfied.

That does not establish a blanket exemption for everyone with a pending immigration application. Instead, the dispute concerns whether the government made the findings required by law before assessing a fine.

Related coverage: States challenge Trump administration’s public charge green card rule

How the administration shortened the process

DHS and the Justice Department published the interim final rule on June 27, 2025. It took effect immediately.

The regulation removed the separate notice-of-intent stage before a penalty decision. It also allowed ordinary mail, eliminated the option to request an in-person interview and gave recipients 15 business days to appeal.

Additionally, it transferred administrative appeals from the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals to a DHS supervisory officer. That officer could not be the person who issued the initial decision.

The agencies said the changes would reduce administrative burdens and let them impose penalties more quickly. They maintained that the process preserved a meaningful opportunity to contest a fine.

O’Toole nevertheless questioned whether recipients could effectively defend themselves within the shortened period.

He described the appeal provision as “essentially punitive.” A recipient would need to receive and understand an English-language notice, plan a defense, gather supporting records and mail a response within the deadline.

Because those changes could substantially affect someone’s ability to challenge a penalty, the judge rejected the government’s effort to treat them as merely internal procedural adjustments.

Why public comment became a central issue

Federal agencies generally must publish proposed regulations and give the public an opportunity to comment before adopting them. Exceptions exist, but O’Toole found the government had not justified the exceptions it invoked here.

The administration argued that the rule involved foreign affairs and agency procedure.

For the foreign-affairs argument, officials pointed to the coordination required to obtain travel documents, confirm nationality and arrange removals with other countries.

However, the judge found that the regulation governed how authorities impose, review and collect penalties against people already in the United States. Those domestic procedures did not directly involve foreign governments, treaties or foreign action.

He also distinguished routine administrative changes from restrictions affecting a person’s opportunity to defend against a large financial penalty.

As a result, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the administration unlawfully skipped advance notice and public comment.

The decision grants preliminary relief based on those findings. It does not resolve every constitutional claim raised in the lawsuit.

Billions in assessments, far less in collections

The scale of the ICE fines program grew sharply during Trump’s second term.

In a July announcement, DHS said it had issued more than 103,000 fines totaling approximately $84 billion. The department presented the penalties as a way to encourage people with removal orders to leave the country.

Those figures describe assessed penalties. They do not mean the government collected $84 billion.

An Aug. 31 Congressional Research Service report repeated the assessment total and cited reporting that collections amounted to $1.2 million. Both figures predate the latest ruling.

Congress authorized failure-to-depart civil penalties in 1996. According to CRS, the government began enforcing that provision in 2018, during Trump’s first administration. The Biden administration later withdrew the penalties, and Trump directed renewed assessment and collection after returning to office in January 2025.

The daily maximum, adjusted for inflation, reached $998. Assessments covering years of alleged violations produced the roughly $1.8 million bills at issue.

The government’s argument for financial pressure

DHS has openly linked the penalties to its effort to increase departures.

In its July announcement, the department said people who leave through the CBP Home program could receive forgiveness of failure-to-depart civil fines. It also advertised travel assistance and an exit payment.

Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis warned in that announcement that people who did not leave could face fines, arrest and deportation.

The plaintiffs, meanwhile, argue that the penalties pressure people to abandon potential paths to lawful status. Their lawsuit challenges both the procedures for issuing the fines and the government’s alleged failure to assess individual circumstances.

Reuters reported that DHS had no immediate comment on the ruling.

Why the judge ordered relief before the case ends

The government argued that the plaintiffs could receive relief later if they ultimately won. O’Toole found that approach inadequate given their financial circumstances.

The opinion described risks including wage garnishment, loss of vehicles or homes, collection lawsuits and other consequences. It also cited declarations from additional recipients describing collection demands, a seized joint tax refund, credit damage and severe distress.

For the named plaintiffs, the judge found that collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars or more could cause insolvency. A later decision canceling the notices might not repair the damage already done.

That finding supported a pause while the court considers the merits.

The immediate result is a suspension of the challenged rule and fines issued through it. The remaining fight concerns whether the administration can defend those penalties under the law — and whether affected recipients will ultimately obtain permanent relief.