U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw ordered the Trump administration to return three immigrant families to the United States after ruling that federal immigration agents carried out their deportations through what he called "lies, deception, and coercion." The San Diego-based judge — a George W. Bush appointee — issued an eight-page ruling requiring the government to bear the cost of bringing the families back.

The families had been deported last summer. At least one was flown to Honduras. All three were covered under a 2023 settlement agreement tied to the 2018 "Zero Tolerance" family separation policy, which had granted them temporary legal status and a path to reunification.

The ruling raises hard questions — not about the goals of immigration enforcement, which remain popular and necessary, but about the methods reportedly used in these specific cases.

What the Judge Found

Sabraw's ruling painted a picture of immigration officials who allegedly pressured vulnerable families into leaving the country — even when those families held valid legal status under the settlement. In one case, reported by ABC News, officials told a mother that her legal status "did not matter." In another, a mother was told that if she did not "self-deport," her children would be placed in foster care or put up for adoption.

That is not enforcement. That is coercion dressed in a badge.

One mother, during a July 2025 check-in with ICE, told officials she "wanted to give up" because she "increasingly felt that [she] could not survive in the U.S. under these conditions." According to reports, she had been ordered to check in with ICE at least eleven times over two months — a pace that caused her to lose her job. She and her three children were ultimately detained in a motel for three days before being flown to Honduras. One of her children was a six-year-old U.S. citizen.

Sabraw wrote plainly:

"The manner in which each of these removals was affected, in addition to being unlawful, involved lies, deception, and coercion."

He further noted:

"Each of the removals was unlawful, and absent the removals, these families would still be in the United States and have access to the benefits and resources they are entitled to under the Settlement Agreement."

The government argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to order the families returned and that certain families — including one removed despite holding valid parole — had departed "voluntarily." Sabraw rejected that claim outright.

Enforcement Demands Integrity

Conservatives have spent years — rightly — demanding that immigration law be enforced. The border crisis under the Biden administration was a catastrophe precisely because the law was treated as optional. Millions of illegal immigrants crossed into the country while federal officials looked the other way or actively facilitated entry. The Trump administration's mandate to restore order at the border is not just politically popular — it is legally and morally correct.

But enforcement only works when it operates within the law. That is not a liberal talking point. It is the foundation of the rule-of-law argument that conservatives have been making for decades.

These three families were not illegal immigrants who evaded authorities and hid in sanctuary cities. They were participants in a legal settlement, with court-recognized status, who had been separated from their children in 2018. One mother was separated from her five-year-old daughter. The 2023 agreement was supposed to resolve those cases — granting temporary legal status and, according to corroborating reporting, humanitarian parole through 2027. The settlement itself prohibits family separation as a policy until 2031.

When agents tell a mother with valid parole that her legal status "did not matter" and threaten to place her children in foster care, the credibility of the entire enforcement apparatus takes a hit. Every legitimate deportation — and there are thousands that need to happen — becomes harder to defend when opponents can point to cases like this one.

The Government's Weak Defense

The administration's legal arguments did not hold up. The claim that the families departed "voluntarily" collapsed under the weight of the judge's findings. A woman told her children would be taken from her and placed in foster care did not leave voluntarily. She left under duress. The distinction matters — legally and morally.

The jurisdictional argument — that the court had no authority to order the families returned — was similarly rejected, though the government's full legal reasoning on that point remains unclear from available reporting. DHS did not immediately respond to ABC News's request for comment.

Silence is not a strategy. When a Bush-appointed federal judge issues an eight-page ruling accusing your agents of lying to families covered by a court settlement, you respond. You explain. You either defend the conduct or you hold the agents accountable. What you don't do is say nothing.

A Pattern Worth Watching

This case sits at the intersection of two realities that conservatives need to hold in tension. The first: the immigration system is broken, and aggressive enforcement is overdue. The second: enforcement conducted outside the law undermines the very principle that justifies it.

If federal agents told these families the truth — that their legal status was valid, that they had rights under the settlement, and that they could remain — and those families still chose to leave, that would be a different case. But that is not what the judge found. He found the opposite.

The left will seize on this ruling to argue that all immigration enforcement is cruel. That is wrong, and it is predictable. They have never distinguished between lawful removal of illegal immigrants and the kind of conduct alleged here. Everything is "cruelty" to them, which is precisely why the word has lost its meaning in the immigration debate.

But conservatives cannot afford to make the same mistake in reverse — treating every enforcement action as automatically justified simply because the broader mission is righteous. The mission is righteous. Individual actions still have to meet the standard.

What Comes Next

The three families must now be returned to the United States at government expense. The settlement remains in effect. According to CBS reporting, Sabraw had actually ordered a pause on deportations of settlement-eligible families back in June 2025 — meaning these removals allegedly took place after a federal judge had already told the government to stop.

If that reporting is accurate, it transforms this from a case about overzealous agents into something more serious: potential contempt of a federal court order. That is a fight the administration does not need and should not want.

The broader enforcement agenda — removing illegal immigrants, securing the border, ending the chaos — commands broad public support. It does not require cutting corners on families who already have legal status under a court-approved settlement. There are millions of people in this country illegally who have no such status, no such agreement, and no legal basis to remain. Focus there.

Three families. A six-year-old American citizen deported to Honduras. A mother told her children would be taken if she didn't comply. An eight-page ruling from a Republican-appointed judge who found the government lied.

The law is either the standard or it isn't. That question doesn't change depending on who's in the White House.