Trump-Appointed Judge Holds Administration in Contempt Over Illegal Deportation/ TezzBuzz/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ A Trump-appointed federal judge held the administration in contempt for deporting a 19-year-old asylum seeker to El Salvador despite three court orders. Judge Stephanie Gallagher ordered the government to return the man, restore his documents and property, and temporarily halt further removal efforts.
The ruling marks the second contempt finding in the same class-action case involving young immigrants’ access to the asylum process.
Quick Look
- Judge Stephanie Gallagher found the administration in contempt.
- The case involves a 19-year-old asylum seeker identified as E.L.A.
- He was deported to El Salvador despite three court orders.
- The orders date from November 2024, April 2025 and July 2026.
- Gallagher ordered the government to bring him back to the United States.
- Officials must return his personal property and documents.
- The administration cannot execute a final removal order for now.
- Court documents indicate this was his second removal.
- Government attorneys blamed communication errors.
- The parties must provide a status update by Oct. 2.
Deep Look
Judge holds Trump administration in contempt
A federal judge appointed by President Donald Trump held his administration in contempt Friday for deporting a young asylum seeker to El Salvador in violation of three separate court orders.
U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ordered the government to bring the man back to the United States.
The asylum seeker, identified in court records by the initials E.L.A., is 19 years old.
The case represents another confrontation between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary over deportations carried out despite legal protections.
Government violated three court orders
Gallagher found that the administration violated judicial orders issued in November 2024, April 2025 and July 2026.
Those orders protected E.L.A. from removal while officials completed required steps in his asylum case.
Despite those restrictions, he was deported to El Salvador.
The repeated violations led the judge to use the court’s contempt authority, which is intended to enforce compliance with judicial orders.
Administration ordered to return asylum seeker
Gallagher directed federal officials to arrange for E.L.A.’s return to the United States.
The government must also restore his personal property and immigration documents.
The judge prohibited the administration from carrying out any final deportation order against him until officials make the required asylum determination or the legal settlement governing his case expires.
The order is intended to return him as closely as possible to the position he held before the wrongful deportation.
Second removal for E.L.A.
Court documents indicate that this was the second time E.L.A. had been removed from the United States.
The records did not immediately provide full details about his first removal or how he returned afterward.
A second deportation despite continuing litigation raises additional questions about how immigration officials track court-protected individuals and communicate legal restrictions to field officers.
Officials learned of deportation from attorneys
In a Sept. 2 court filing, government lawyers said officials discovered that E.L.A. had been deported after receiving an email from attorneys representing the class of asylum seekers.
That suggests immigration authorities may not have immediately recognized that they had removed someone covered by multiple court orders.
The following day, government representatives said they were “considering appropriate steps to rectify the communication errors that led to ELA’s erroneous removal.”
The acknowledgment characterized the deportation as a mistake caused by communication failures.
White House offers no immediate response
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the contempt ruling.
It was unclear whether the administration planned to appeal Gallagher’s order or how quickly officials could arrange E.L.A.’s return.
Returning a deported person generally requires coordination among the Department of Homeland Security, State Department, foreign authorities and transportation providers.
Second contempt finding in same lawsuit
Gallagher has now held the Trump administration in contempt twice in the same class-action litigation.
Repeated contempt findings are unusual and indicate that the court believes the government has failed to comply with binding legal requirements.
The case is part of a broader series of disputes in which judges have questioned deportations carried out while migrants had active cases, protective orders or pending asylum claims.
Class-action case began in 2019
The underlying lawsuit dates to 2019 during Trump’s first administration.
Young asylum seekers challenged a policy imposed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The policy restricted their ability to submit asylum applications to the agency while they were already involved in removal proceedings.
The plaintiffs argued that the rule improperly limited protections Congress provided to young immigrants seeking refuge in the United States.
Case centers on access to asylum
Asylum applicants must demonstrate that they face persecution in their home countries based on protected grounds such as religion, nationality, political opinion, race or membership in a particular social group.
The legal dispute concerns which agency must consider those claims and whether young immigrants can pursue asylum through USCIS while immigration court proceedings remain active.
Gallagher’s orders were designed to preserve those rights until officials made the required determinations.
E.L.A.’s deportation prevented him from remaining in the United States while that process continued.
Courts clash with immigration enforcement
The contempt finding comes as the Trump administration pursues a sweeping campaign to remove millions of people living in the country without permanent legal status.
Federal judges have repeatedly intervened when deportations appear to conflict with court orders, due-process requirements or legal protections against persecution and torture.
The administration has argued that court restrictions interfere with its ability to enforce immigration law quickly.
Judges have maintained that the government must comply with legal procedures and individual protective orders even while conducting broader enforcement operations.
Court sets Oct. 2 deadline
Gallagher ordered the parties to update the court by Oct. 2.
The filing must state whether E.L.A. wants to return to the United States.
If he chooses to return, the parties must provide information about the government’s plan and timetable for bringing him back.
The deadline will allow the judge to monitor compliance and determine whether additional court action is necessary.
More on US News