Federal judge blocks rule that slapped immigrants with million-dollar civil fines for failing to depart

A Massachusetts federal court has handed immigrants a major victory, issuing a nationwide preliminary injunction that freezes a Trump-era regulation used by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to levy ruinous civil fines—often exceeding US $1 million—on non-citizens who remained in the country after a removal or voluntary-departure order. In an order dated September 30 and unsealed on October 5 but widely reported on October 7, Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. ruled that the plaintiffs in *Maria L. v. Mullin* are likely to prove that DHS and the Department of Justice bypassed required notice-and-comment procedures and failed to consider individual circumstances before imposing the penalties. The challenged 2025 interim final rule allowed ICE to issue a “notice of monetary penalty” without first sending an intent-to-fine letter, slashed the response window from 30 to 15 days and eliminated opportunities for in-person interviews. According to court filings, the government has issued more than 65,000 penalty notices—totaling up to US $36 billion—since the rule took effect, with some fines calculated at nearly US $1,000 per day of unlawful presence. Judge O’Toole found that the rule likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act and exceeded the agencies’ statutory authority, noting that the underlying statutes penalise “willful or voluntary” failure to depart, not mere presence. The injunction prevents the government from collecting or enforcing the fines while the case proceeds but leaves DHS free to pursue penalties under the pre-2025 regime. For companies that support foreign national employees in extended removal or humanitarian relief proceedings, the decision removes an unpredictable liability that could derail settlement negotiations or employer-sponsored status adjustments. Immigration advisers should review any outstanding fine notices received by assignees or their family members; collection efforts should now be on hold, but deadlines to respond under older regulations may still apply. The ruling also illustrates how aggressive enforcement measures can collide with procedural safeguards, creating compliance whiplash for employers. Mobility teams should monitor further litigation: a final decision striking down the rule could require ICE to revisit tens of thousands of penalty files, while an appellate reversal could reinstate the fines with little notice.