At least 25 people who were separated from their families when arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border during the first Trump Administration have been detained again or deported, the American Civil Liberties Union alleged in federal court in San Diego on Thursday. The ACLU argued the federal governmen t has continued to violate a settlement agreement reached in 2023 in a class action lawsuit filed over the family separations implemented in President Donald Trump’s first term as a “zero-tolerance” policy to deter migrants from attempting to enter the U.S., many seeking asylum. “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,” said ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt. The ACLU filed the lawsuit “Ms. L. v ICE” in 2018 on behalf of a woman who arrived at the San Ysidro port of entry in November 2017 with her 6-year-old daughter to seek asylum. Immigration officials separated the two and sent the child to Chicago, holding the mother at the Otay Mesa Detention Center for months, releasing them in March, only after the lawsuit was filed. The lawsuit became a class action lawsuit, covering any parents or children that immigration officials separated from one another during Trump’s first term. “When we filed this case, we thought maybe there were a few hundred families that have been separated and we would get them reunited and hopefully it would end quickly,” Gelernt said, adding that they’ve since learned it happened to at least 6,000 families. Immigration Lawsuits Jan 6 San Diego sues federal government over razor wire fence near U.S.-Mexico border Minnesota Jan 25 Immigrant families protest at Texas facility housing 5-year-old boy, father detained in Minnesota “We had no idea that there were thousands and thousands of families were separated, some children as young as six months, and that we’d be searching for them all over the world, and that this case would still be going on eight years later,” he continued. “And what I don’t think people understand is we still believe that there are a few hundred families we haven’t found, who may still not be with their children.” In 2023, the Biden Administration reached a settlement agreement in the lawsuit to limit family separations and assist those who had been separated, with then-Attorney General Merrick Garland calling the practice “shameful.” That assistance in the court-approved agreement included an effort to reunify families, as well as providing legal support and opportunities to apply for parole, which essentially allows individuals to remain in the U.S. and be authorized to work as their asylum cases wind through the system. In federal court Thursday, the ACLU argued at least 25 people previously separated from their families have been detained, some at ICE check-ins, and some deported despite having valid parole.   The government’s attorney Daniel Schutrum-Boward argued in court that the Department of Homeland Security has the discretion to end parole, and did so lawfully before the removals. “The government’s position is that these removals were not in violation of the settlement agreement because the settlement agreement does not preclude removals or detentions,” Schutrum-Boward told the judge. “The parties explicitly agree that the settlement shall not be construed to waive, reduce or otherwise diminish defendants’ authority to enforce the law.” Neither ICE nor DHS responded to a request for comment on the ACLU’s allegations. Representing a 5-year-old is a very difficult challenge,” he continued. “Oftentimes this 5-year-old was unaware of what was going on, was unaware of what my role was as an attorney, was unaware of the court proceedings.Narciso Cruz “There was no system. There was no order on how to go ahead and reunite these parents to these children,” said San Diego immigration attorney Narciso Cruz, who represented parents who had been separated from their children. “There was a lot of misunderstanding and chaos. Some parents were very distraught inside the federal district court, asking immediately to be deported so they could at least be with their children,” Cruz said. “Some were asking about the whereabouts of their children, if they could just have a phone call, a status update as to where their children were located.” “As an attorney who sought to obtain that information, I did not – I was not successful. It was impossible to get that information,” he said. Cruz said he also represented children who had been removed from their parents, navigating the immigration system alone. “This caused a lot of trauma, a lot of hardship, psychological trauma that still lingers in these young children,” Cruz said. “Representing a 5-year-old is a very difficult challenge,” he continued. “Oftentimes this 5-year-old was unaware of what was going on, was unaware of what my role was as an attorney, was unaware of the court proceedings.” “That was the whole purpose of the settlement, is these families were subjected to one of the cruelest policies in the history of immigration law in this country,” Gelernt said. The two sides on Thursday also presented arguments on fees and reapplication periods. Part of the settlement agreement included waived application fees for that status. The federal government argued Thursday that the increased fees passed under the “One Big Beautiful Bill” amounted to new fees from which the people covered in the settlement agreement are no longer exempt. The government also argued that the three-year period of work authorization while paroled now requires a reapplication each year, as opposed to a more streamlined renewal process. The ACLU argued that constituted a burden that fell beyond the scope of the terms of the settlement agreement. The ACLU requested court orders on each issue, including an order for the government to explain why some have been re-detained or deported. It’s not clear when the judge may rule. ...read more read less