A federal judge in Maryland has found that the Department of Homeland Security wrongfully deported at least 84 people protected by a court-approved asylum settlement. In a November 3, 2026 ruling, U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher extended the court's authority to address those violations until May 27, 2027. The decision does not cover all asylum applicants: it concerns members of a specific class of people who arrived in the United States as unaccompanied children.
What the court established
In J.O.P. v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 8:19-cv-01944, the court reviewed the government's compliance with a 2024 settlement protecting certain former unaccompanied minors while USCIS considers their asylum applications. The agreement prohibits removing protected class members before USCIS decides their asylum claims on the merits.
According to the November 3 opinion, at least 84 confirmed class members had been removed in violation of that provision. The court also reported that 163 people in the broader group under review had been removed without a merits decision from USCIS. Not all 163 have been confirmed as eligible class members; some may have waived relevant protections. The distinction is critical: the judicial finding of a violation applies to at least 84 confirmed members, not automatically to every one of the 163 cases.
Judge Gallagher rejected the government's characterization of the violations as a small number of potential mistakes. At the same time, the court expressly stated that the record did not establish intentional disregard of the settlement. The ruling therefore establishes serious noncompliance, not a judicial finding that officials deliberately violated the agreement.
Why these asylum applicants had special protections
The litigation began in 2019 over the treatment of asylum applications filed by people initially designated unaccompanied alien children. A 2024 class settlement preserved access to an initial merits determination by USCIS for qualifying members, even where immigration court proceedings were pending. This procedural protection is distinct from an ultimate grant of asylum: USCIS may approve a claim or refer it to immigration court, but eligible applicants must receive the process promised by the settlement.
Eligibility is not universal. According to the National Immigration Project's settlement guidance, qualifying individuals generally had to file an asylum application with USCIS by February 24, 2025, in addition to meeting the class definition and other conditions.
What changes after the November ruling
The settlement's general termination date had already been extended to November 27, 2026. Class counsel sought a much longer extension, through February 24, 2028, for wrongly removed people. Judge Gallagher declined to grant that blanket period. Instead, she preserved the court's jurisdiction for six additional months, through May 27, 2027, specifically to address confirmed class members wrongfully removed on or before November 27, 2026 without a USCIS asylum merits decision.
The extension gives lawyers time to locate affected individuals and seek remedies. Those remedies will be considered case by case. The court did not order the automatic return of all 84 people, did not grant them asylum, and did not suspend deportations nationwide. Some individuals offered return in earlier proceedings chose to remain abroad, the opinion notes.
The larger accountability question
The judge said the approaching end of the settlement would otherwise risk leaving people who had been wrongly removed without a meaningful opportunity to seek relief. The court also noted that efforts to identify affected people had uncovered possible violations close to the agreement's expiration.
For immigration practitioners, the decision illustrates that a removal order alone does not eliminate separate procedural rights created by a binding court settlement. For affected families, the immediate questions are whether a person qualifies for the J.O.P. class, whether USCIS reached the merits of the asylum application, and whether removal violated the settlement. Those questions require individual review.
Primary source: November 3 memorandum opinion, J.O.P. v. DHS, ECF 767. Additional sources: National Immigration Project case and settlement updates; USCIS final class notice; Law360 reporting, November 4.