A Cuban immigrant residing in Arizona received a fine of $1,820,252 for remaining in the United States despite having a deportation order. Months later, a federal judge suspended the mechanism used by the Donald Trump administration to impose such massive penalties
The Cuban, identified only as Sánchez for fear of reprisals, works as a gardener and arrived in the United States at the age of 18 along with his family, who left Cuba after suffering political persecution related to his father's opposition to the Castro regime, as reported in May by Arizona Mirror.
The notification from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) required him to pay $1,820,252, an amount that left him in a state of immense uncertainty.
"I can't even sleep from worry. What am I going to do?" he declared to the aforementioned media outlet. The Cuban, a father of three children born in the United States, also expressed his fear of being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
His case was part of a much broader offensive. Between January 20, 2025, and March 18, 2026, ICE had issued 65,101 civil fines totaling over $36 billion, according to data from DHS itself cited by Arizona Mirror.
Now, that policy faces a significant judicial setback.
Federal Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. of the District Court of Massachusetts ordered on September 30 to suspend the enforcement of the challenged interim regulation and the penalties resulting from his decision while the process continues.
The decision is the result of a lawsuit filed by two immigrants identified as Maria L. and Nancy M., along with the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, against several federal government agencies.
One of them, Nancy M., had been fined approximately $1.82 million despite being in the United States under an immigration supervision order. Subsequently, she obtained approval for an immigrant visa and was admitted to the United States as a legal permanent resident
Judge questions how fines were imposed
The court found that the plaintiffs have a chance to demonstrate that the Government was imposing sanctions without individually determining whether each immigrant had actually violated a removal order in a “intentional” or “voluntary” manner, conditions outlined in the legal provisions used to impose the fines.
The ruling also questioned the procedure established by DHS and the Department of Justice in June 2025.
The new regulation allowed for direct issuance of fines, notified via regular mail, and reduced the time frame for contesting them from 30 to 15 days. Additionally, it eliminated certain options previously available, including the possibility of requesting an in-person interview.
O’Toole noted that 15 days might be insufficient for an immigrant to receive the notification, understand its legal content in English, gather documents, prepare their defense, and submit a response.
The court also deemed it likely that the plaintiffs would be able to demonstrate that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by implementing the regulations without first completing the usual process of public notice and comments.
Since April 2025, reports have outlined the Trump administration's plans to impose fines of up to $998 per day on immigrants who fail to comply with final deportation orders, along with the possibility of confiscating assets in cases of non-payment.
In May of that year, the case of a Hispanic immigrant residing in Maryland was reported who received a fine of $1,771,450.
Also, a 41-year-old Honduran woman living in Florida and mother of three U.S. citizens who received a fine of 1.82 million dollars after remaining in the country following a deportation order issued in 2005.
The suspension issued now by the Massachusetts court does not imply a definitive annulment of the fines nor a final ruling on the legality of the policy.
The judge himself indicated that the Government can continue to enforce legal provisions regarding immigration sanctions through existing procedures prior to the regulations of June 2025 while the case is ongoing.
The court order will remain in effect until a new decision is made by the court.
Related videos:
Filed under: