A federal judge in Boston has stayed an Immigration and Customs Enforcement rule that allowed the agency to levy civil fines against immigrants who failed to leave the country after a removal order, finding the rule likely conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the statute that governs most of federal immigration law. Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. issued the order on September 30 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, blocking enforcement of any fines imposed after the rule took effect while the underlying lawsuit continues.
The ruling halts, for now, a Trump administration enforcement push that produced more than 103,000 fines totaling roughly $84 billion, with individual penalties reaching as high as $1.8 million. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE had used civil lawsuits, seizure of tax refunds, and referrals to outside debt collectors to pursue payment. The stay does not resolve the case on the merits — it is a preliminary measure keeping the fines unenforceable while litigation proceeds, and the scope of what it covers beyond the named plaintiffs has not been spelled out in the public record.
What the Judge Found
Judge O'Toole concluded the ICE rule likely conflicts with the INA, the federal statute that authorizes civil penalties for certain immigration violations, including failing to depart after a removal order. His September 30 order stayed the rule — meaning it is suspended and cannot be enforced — while the broader lawsuit challenging it moves forward.
The order also blocked enforcement of any fines that had already been imposed under the rule since it took effect. That means fines issued through the streamlined process are currently unenforceable, though the order does not erase the underlying statutory authority ICE has long held to fine people for these violations.
The Rule ICE Used to Issue Fines
The fines themselves are not new. They have long been authorized under the INA, but ICE did not actively enforce them until the first Trump administration. What changed under the interim final rule challenged in this case was the process: it streamlined how ICE calculated and issued these penalties, allowing the agency to move more quickly and at a far larger scale than before.
An interim final rule is a type of regulation that takes effect immediately, without the advance public notice-and-comment period normally required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal law governing how agencies write and justify regulations. Agencies can sometimes skip that process by citing good cause, but doing so invites exactly the kind of legal challenge now pending in Massachusetts.
How the Fines Were Collected
Once a fine was issued, the government did not rely solely on a notice in the mail. The administration brought civil lawsuits seeking payment, seized federal tax refunds owed to fined individuals, and referred unpaid balances to outside debt collectors — the same tools used to recover other types of federal debt.
The Scale of the Fines
DHS disclosed in July that it had issued more than 103,000 fines totaling approximately $84 billion. Individual penalties reached as high as $1.8 million per person, figures that reflect an enforcement effort far larger than anything seen under the INA's fine authority before this rule took effect.
Why the Court Sided With Plaintiffs
Central to the judge's reasoning was a finding that ICE and DHS failed to consider the individual circumstances of people hit with the fines. The order noted that both named plaintiffs in the case were actively pursuing lawful immigration relief, with one of them already approved for an immigrant visa and permanent residency — undercutting the idea that they were simply ignoring removal orders.
That detail mattered to the court's assessment of whether the streamlined process properly accounted for people who were complying with immigration authorities even as they remained in the country while their cases were pending.
The Case and the Plaintiffs Behind It
The case, Maria L. v. Noem, was filed as a class action roughly a year before the stay was granted. It alleges the ICE rule violated public notice requirements under the APA as well as the Fifth Amendment's due process clause and other constitutional protections. Two individual plaintiffs, represented by a coalition of immigrant advocacy groups, asked the court specifically for a stay of the rule.
Plaintiffs are represented by the Legal Aid Society, the Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, the Free Migration Project, Public Justice, and the NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic. Hasan Shafiqullah, supervising attorney at the Legal Aid Society's Civil Law Reform Unit, said the decision was a critical victory for immigrant families threatened with financial ruin by the policy, adding that the fines were being assessed against people doing exactly what the law requires by seeking lawful immigration relief and complying with immigration authorities.
What Remains Unresolved
The stay is a preliminary order, not a final ruling on whether the ICE rule is unlawful. The case continues in the District of Massachusetts, and the public record does not establish whether the government intends to appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
It is also unclear from the available record whether the stay reaches every one of the 103,000-plus fines DHS has issued or only those affecting the certified class, whether money already collected through tax-refund seizures must be returned, and whether debt-collector referrals already made must be withdrawn. ICE's underlying statutory authority to fine people for failing to depart remains intact regardless of this order — what is paused is the specific streamlined process the agency used to issue and collect the penalties at this scale.
Clinch Law Legal Analysis
Sources
This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts and current law.
A federal judge in Boston stayed the ICE interim final rule that streamlined civil immigration fines, blocking enforcement of penalties issued under that rule while litigation continues. The September 30 order in Maria L. V. Noem means that the more than 103,000 fines DHS reportedly issued—totaling roughly $84 billion—cannot currently be enforced through civil suits, tax-refund seizures, or debt-collector referrals under the stayed rule. Individuals who received such fines should not assume the stay automatically cancels their fine notices; the order's precise scope, including whether it applies only to class members or more broadly, is not fully established in the available reporting. Anyone who has received a fine notice or a debt-collection referral should preserve all documents and seek individual legal counsel promptly rather than ignore pending deadlines.
The court reportedly found that ICE likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act by issuing the rule without notice-and-comment rulemaking and that the rule likely conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act because ICE's standardized process failed to consider individual circumstances, including whether a person's failure to depart was willful. A strong competing interpretation exists: the government may argue the INA independently authorizes these fines and that an interim final rule with good cause satisfies the APA. Key uncertainties remain, including whether the government will appeal to the First Circuit, how the stay interacts with fines already reduced to civil judgments, and whether a separate June 2025 interim rule's underlying statutory authority is affected. The litigation is ongoing and the stay is not a final judgment on the merits.
Questions Clients Are Asking#
Does the court's stay mean my ICE civil fine is canceled?
Not necessarily. The court stayed the interim final rule and blocked enforcement of fines imposed after the rule took effect. However, a stay is not a final judgment vacating the fines. The precise scope of the order—including whether it covers all fines or only those of class members—is not fully detailed in available reporting. Individuals with pending fines should preserve all documents and consult an immigration attorney about their specific situation.
Can ICE still seize my tax refund or send my fine to debt collectors?
The reporting states that the court blocked enforcement of fines imposed under the stayed rule. Bloomberg Law noted that the Trump administration had been using civil suits, tax-refund seizures, and debt-collector referrals to collect fines. While the stay appears to halt these collection mechanisms for fines issued under the rule, the order's exact reach is not fully established in the available record. Individuals facing active collection should seek legal counsel immediately.
Will the government appeal this ruling?
The available reporting does not indicate whether the government plans to appeal the stay to the First Circuit. The order was issued September 30, 2026, and reported on October 6, 2026. Whether and when an appeal is filed remains an open question that could significantly affect the duration and scope of the stay.
Who is covered by the class action Maria L. v. Noem?
Bloomberg Law identifies the case as Maria L. v. Noem, No. 1:25-cv-13471, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs are represented by the Legal Aid Society, the Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, the Free Migration Project, Public Justice, and the NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic. The reporting does not detail the certified class definition. Individuals should contact the plaintiffs' counsel organizations to determine whether they fall within the class.
Can ICE still issue new civil fines for failure to depart?
The reporting states that the INA has long authorized these fines. The court stayed the specific interim final rule that streamlined the fine-issuance process. Whether ICE retains authority to issue fines under the prior framework or the underlying statute independent of the stayed rule is not resolved in the available reporting. This is an important unresolved question in the ongoing litigation.