A judge shredded the Donald Trump administration’s DACA stance and demands an immediate fix
The human impact of policy decisions.
A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to immediately bring back a woman who was abruptly deported to Mexico last month, despite her active protections under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. This ruling directly challenges the administration’s legal interpretation of DACA, with the judge calling the deportation a “flagrant violation” of the program’s core promise.
According to Politico, Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez, who arrived in the United States in 1998 as an undocumented 15-year-old, was granted DACA protection in 2013. She lives in Sacramento with her 22-year-old US citizen daughter. Her story took a horrifying turn on February 18 when she attended a hearing as part of her process to attain lawful permanent residency.
Federal immigration officers denied her application, informed her of a decades-old removal order against her, and then detained her. She was deported to Mexico the very next morning, despite her protests that her DACA status was still active.
Maria and her family were clearly trying to follow the established legal pathways
US District Judge Dena Coggins didn’t mince words in her Monday order, labeling Estrada’s deportation a “flagrant violation” of DACA’s promise of protection for those who arrived as minors. She also stated that it violated Estrada’s constitutional due process rights. Judge Coggins, a Biden appointee, has directed the administration to facilitate Estrada’s return by March 30.
The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, argued that the judge actually had no power to intervene in this dispute. They claimed that Estrada was subject to a valid deportation order and that her DACA status merely deprioritized her deportation rather than totally eliminating the threat of it. This interpretation really highlights a fundamental disagreement about what DACA actually means for recipients.
However, Judge Coggins completely disagreed with that line of reasoning. She pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling that preserved DACA, emphasizing that it was not just a matter of executive discretion. Instead, the Supreme Court had underscored that DACA is “a program for conferring affirmative relief,” meaning it provides genuine, active protection. It’s not just a temporary pause on deportation, which is a key distinction here.
Judge Coggins also firmly asserted her power to demand the return of someone illegally deported, noting that courts have done so under “extreme circumstances.” She made it very clear that Estrada’s case absolutely qualified. “It is difficult to argue that Petitioner’s removal constitutes anything less than an ‘extreme circumstance,’” the judge wrote.
She highlighted that less than 24 hours after Estrada appeared in good faith to pursue lawful permanent resident status, she was removed to a nation where she hadn’t lived in over 27 years. Furthermore, her removal was based on an order supposedly entered when she was only fifteen years old.
Estrada herself told the court that her deportation has caused “severe emotional trauma and financial hardship” for her family. Her daughter also described feeling utterly helpless as she watched her mother being detained and led away, saying the weeks since her mother’s arrest and deportation have left her “feeling completely alone and afraid.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
