President Donald Trump ran on a platform promising the mass deportation of illegal immigrants and his administration has been working hard to achieve this goal, using numerous methods at their disposal. Pro-immigration activists, however, have met many of the Trump administration’s measures with lawsuits, from moves to terminate parole and temporary protected status (TPS) programs to actually rounding up and arresting foreign terrorist organization affiliates. The latest Trump administration immigration measure to be met in court is a financial one.

Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it would begin fining illegal immigrants nearly $1,000 a day for each day within a five-year window that they remain in the U.S. illegally. On Thursday, a group of illegal immigrants filed a lawsuit to block DHS from imposing those fines. Two illegal immigrants reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had sent them notices “informing them they owe huge fines ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to roughly $1.8 million.”

According to the illegal immigrants’ attorneys, the two illegal immigrants “are among tens of thousands of people whom ICE has exorbitantly fined for allegedly willfully or voluntarily failing to depart the country. Defendants impose these civil penalties without finding, or even considering, whether the fines are appropriate in an individual case.” The attorneys continued, “Left undisturbed, these fines will drive [the illegal immigrants] and thousands of other people living in the U.S. into ruinous debt, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act (‘INA’), and the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’).”

Despite the fact that their clients entered the U.S. illegally, the attorneys argued that neither of the illegal immigrants involved in the lawsuit “committed a violation of the law that would give rise to these civil penalties, but Defendants imposed the penalties anyway. Each of the Individual Plaintiffs is in the process of pursuing legal relief that would allow them to obtain lawful status and remain present in the country.” The lawyers further argued, “Since the introduction of civil penalties via the enactment of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act (‘IIRIRA’) in 1996, only President Trump has ever sought to impose civil penalties on noncitizens under these provisions.”

During the first Trump administration, the attorneys argued, numerous legal scholars and even administration officials questioned whether or not it was legal or advisable to impose hefty fines on illegal immigrants. “Nonetheless, on the first day of President Trump’s second term, January 20, 2025, the President revived the policy and directed Defendants to assess and collect the fines at issue,” the lawyers wrote. The officials of the second Trump administration, the lawyers averred, decided “that all statutory requirements for a penalty — including whether the alleged violation was willful or voluntary — can be inferred from the mere facts that a removal order exists and that the individual remains in the United States, with no individualized inquiry.”

The Trump administration’s use of fines, the illegal immigrants and their attorneys argued, violates “the plain language of the INA; the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines; the Seventh Amendment’s jury trial guarantee; the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and the APA.” So far, the Trump administration has fined over 21,500 illegal immigrants, who the attorneys claim now owe the federal government over $6 billion. Hasan Shafiqullah, one of the lawyers representing the illegal immigrants, said in a statement, “These fines are designed to terrorize families and force them into self-deportation.” He claimed, “The people we serve are doing exactly what the law requires — pursuing legal relief through immigration courts and immigration agencies. In return, the government is threatening to seize their wages, cars, even their homes.”

In a statement shared with media, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin characterized the lawsuit as “just another attempt to nullify federal immigration law through activist litigation.” She explained, “The plaintiffs in this case are here illegally and are suing so they can remain in the country illegally without any consequence or penalty — contrary to decades-old federal law.”

One of the two illegal immigrants involved in the lawsuit is living in Massachusetts and “is subject to a final

order of removal,” but “remains present in the United States to pursue humanitarian immigration relief that would allow her to adjust her status and become a lawful permanent resident (i.e., receive a green card).” The other is living in Florida but, despite being “subject to a final order of removal,” claims to be “in the United States with the permission of ICE under an order of supervision requiring annual check-ins, and she has complied with that order since it was put in place. She remains present in the United States to pursue family-based immigration relief that would allow her to become a lawful permanent resident.”

In comments to The Washington Stand, Jessica Vaughan, director of Policy Studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, asserted, “The fines are a reasonable consequence for those who have violated our immigration laws, which after all are primarily civil offenses.” Vaughan explained, “The main reason people come here is to work, and if they have wealth or assets as a result of illegal employment, well those are ill-gotten gains that have come at the expense of Americans and legal immigrants.” She noted, “The fines are levied against those who have had their generous due process, been found ineligible to stay, but still defied our laws and removal or departure orders, and stayed here anyway. If we don’t impose consequences, people will continue to defy our laws.”

“It’s important to remember that these people had a choice — they knew they were told to leave, and they chose not to,” Vaughan observed. In the lawsuit, the attorneys for the illegal immigrants actually admit that their clients were aware as early as March that they could face fines for refusing to leave the U.S. “They should not be allowed to stay here and contest this; they should be sent home, continue their lawsuit if they choose, and if they win, perhaps they can qualify to come back,” Vaughan continued. “But if they leave, they can avoid compounding the financial penalties.” 

“Successful pursuit of these fines will be a strong message and deterrent to others here illegally that their best choice now is to go home on their own and thereby retain any assets they accumulated here, and use them to help get re-established in their home countries,” Vaughan concluded.

“These lawsuits are offensive to most Americans and legal immigrants, who disapprove of illegal immigration and don’t want to see people gaming the system,” Vaughan stressed. “The Trump administration should also start using fines and penalties against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers, and potentially even in certain egregious cases where employers may not have done the direct hiring, but who claim to be oblivious to what is going on,” she added. “They should potentially face civil liability in certain circumstances. The fines help reduce the gains from the illegal conduct, and can be used by the government to help fund enforcement efforts.”

The lawsuit names Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, DHS, Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner Rodney Scott, CBP, Attorney General Pam Bondi, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR) Director Daren Margolin, and EOIR as defendants. The case has been assigned to Judge George A. O’Toole of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, who was appointed by Bill Clinton.