The legal fight over America's fast-track immigration fines has entered a new phase. Plaintiffs in the Boston class action Maria L. v. Mullin filed two emergency motions on Friday, November 6, arguing that the Department of Homeland Security violated a federal court's September order when it issued a final rule and a ratification notice covering billions of dollars in penalties already imposed on people accused of staying in the country after removal orders, Law360 reported.
Source: Immigration Analytics, Nov. 7, 2026 — reporting Law360, Nov. 6, 2026
This is a new courtroom step, not a repeat of the story so far. Awaaz Punjab reported in October that DHS had ratified the fines and opened a narrow claim window that closes on November 16. The November 6 filings are the plaintiffs' formal answer to that move: they ask the court that froze the fines to decide whether the government's own follow-up documents defied the freeze. The government's response to the motions had not been reported as of Saturday morning, and the plaintiffs' claims remain arguments before the court — not findings by a judge.
What Judge O'Toole froze in September
The case is Maria L. v. Mullin, No. 1:25-cv-13471, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On September 30, Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. granted a stay under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act — the provision that lets a court pause agency action while a challenge proceeds. His order stayed the June 2025 interim final rule “and all fines issued thereunder” until further order of the court.
Two findings drove that ruling, as the stay analysis sets out. First, the judge concluded the interim rule likely conflicts with the Immigration and Nationality Act, because the statutes penalize only conduct shown to be willful or voluntary, and the rule and DHS's practice “effectively read the words ‘voluntarily’ and ‘willfully’ out of the relevant statutory provisions.” Second, he rejected the government's arguments that it could skip notice-and-comment rulemaking, describing the rule's 15-day appeal window as “essentially punitive.” One named plaintiff, fined about $1.8 million, has since become a permanent resident; the fine remains.
Source: Immigration Analytics, Nov. 7, 2026 — reporting Law360, Nov. 6, 2026
The two documents issued after the stay
Two weeks after the stay, on October 14, DHS and the Justice Department finalized the penalty procedures in a rule published after a comment period, keeping the interim structure largely intact (91 FR 65390). On October 26, the department published a notice signed by Secretary Markwayne Mullin ratifying final penalties issued from June 27, 2025, through October 13, 2026, under the failure-to-depart, voluntary-departure and improper-entry provisions (FR Doc. 2026-21751). DHS said it acted “out of an abundance of caution” and that the ratification is not a statement that the fines would have been invalid without it. The notice does not mention the Boston case.
Source: Immigration Analytics, Nov. 7, 2026 — reporting Law360, Nov. 6, 2026
The ratification window is narrow, and it is not a new appeal. A person assessed under the interim procedure may tell ICE that the procedure itself caused them specific prejudice and ask the agency to consider a remedy; disagreeing with the fine alone is not the same claim, and ICE does not promise to cancel or reduce a penalty. Claims go to IFRCivilFinesReview@ice.dhs.gov and must be received by November 16. The email subject must contain the person's full name, date of birth and Alien Registration Number, and the claim must include a current address and telephone number, the penalty tracking number and an invoice number if applicable; ICE says it will not review submissions missing required information. Decisions that were reversed on appeal, are still on appeal, or were reopened and rescinded are excluded.
Source: Factum Immigration, Oct. 27, 2026
Check first whether your penalty decision is final or whether an ordinary appeal is still pending, and whether the harm you claim actually came from the interim procedure — that is the only kind of claim the November 16 window covers. Factum Immigration, which is a news publication and not a law firm, advises anyone with a removal order, an appeal or a disputed fine to get individual legal advice before sending sensitive personal information to ICE.
What is solid
- Judge O'Toole stayed the June 2025 interim rule and all fines under it on Sept. 30, 2026
- DHS and DOJ published a final penalty rule on Oct. 14, 2026
- Secretary Mullin's ratification notice was published Oct. 26, 2026, covering final penalties from June 27, 2025 to Oct. 13, 2026
- The prejudice-claim window closes Nov. 16, 2026
What is only claimed
- Whether the final rule and the ratification violated the September stay — plaintiffs argued yes in emergency motions filed Nov. 6; the government's response had not been reported as of Saturday
Who brought the case — and the fines behind it
The class action was brought by Public Justice, The Legal Aid Society, the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), the NYU Immigrant Rights Clinic, the Free Migration Project and Covington & Burling LLP, on behalf of two individual immigrants and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, against DHS, ICE and the Justice Department. The individual plaintiffs, Maria L. of Massachusetts and Nancy M. of Florida, faced penalties ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to $1.8 million despite maintaining contact with immigration authorities and following the legal processes available to them, the Legal Aid Society said.
Source: The Legal Aid Society, statement of Oct. 6, 2026
The money at stake explains the urgency. The failure-to-depart penalty runs up to $998 for each day a person willfully fails to comply with a removal order, and DHS and the Justice Department acknowledged in their final rule that it can produce sums of more than $1 million in some cases. According to that rule, ICE issued about 110,000 failure-to-depart penalties and CBP about 66,000 improper-entry penalties between June 27, 2025, and September 14, 2026. Bloomberg Law reported that DHS said in July it had issued more than 103,000 fines totaling $84 billion.
Source: Immigration Analytics, Nov. 7, 2026 — reporting Law360, Nov. 6, 2026
Why this matters to diaspora readers
Civil fines of this kind fall on people with final removal orders — a group that includes long-settled immigrants who are pursuing petitions that could still make them lawful permanent residents, which is exactly the position the lawsuit says its two named plaintiffs were in when they were fined. No Punjabi- or Indian-specific breakdown of the fines has been published, and Awaaz Punjab does not invent one. The practical point for any reader in California, New York, New Jersey, Texas or any other state who received a penalty notice under the 2025 interim procedure is the calendar: the prejudice-claim window the plaintiffs are now fighting over closes on November 16, whether or not the court acts first.
What happens next
The open questions, as the case stands on Saturday, are whether Judge O'Toole sets a fast briefing schedule before the November 16 claims deadline, how DHS defends issuing the ratification while the stay was in place, and whether any order reaches the fines ICE issues under the new final rule as well as the older interim ones. If the ratification stands, roughly 15 months of penalties assessed under procedures a federal judge found likely unlawful would be treated as settled. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, that effort could be set aside. Awaaz Punjab will report the government's response and the court's decision as they are filed.
Source: Immigration Analytics, Nov. 7, 2026 — reporting Law360, Nov. 6, 2026