A federal judge in California has demanded that the Trump administration provide details on whether it breached a court order by deporting a migrant identified in a class-action family separation agreement, just days after ICE was prevented from deporting any class members.

The American Civil Liberties Union submitted a motion last week requesting U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw to mandate the government to reveal information regarding whether those acknowledged in the 2023 family separation policy settlement were deported after there were reports of the removal of the migrant and an alleged earlier deportation involving a 13-year-old Guatemalan class member, his mother, and two relatives.

The Biden-era settlement led to legal services and support being provided to migrants who were separated under President Donald Trump’s zero tolerance immigration policy implemented during his first term. ACLU lawyers came forward in June and accused the Trump administration of violating the settlement agreement in various ways, including the removal of the 13-year-old. On June 27, Sabraw ruled that the administration was violating it, and he ordered officials to stop. The judge also halted deportations of class members while the ACLU litigation continues.

Two days after putting the block in place, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported an individual that the ACLU has identified as A.M.R.F., who was separated from his family at the U.S.-Mexico border during Trump’s first term, according to the ACLU.

The 13-year-old who was removed, identified as M.A.J., was also separated from his family during Trump’s first presidency. He had two other relatives who were also deported in June, along with his mother, per the ACLU.

Sabraw granted the group’s motion on Friday and ordered the government to provide the requested information related to the ACLU’s claims, which includes identifying whether any other class members were removed and explaining “in full” the reason for removing M.A.J. and his family, along with a “detailed explanation in a sworn declaration why A.M.R.F. was taken into custody and why he was removed,” per Sabraw’s ruling.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

“In the notice and motion, plaintiffs state that on June 26, 2025, defendants advised them that two class members had been taken into ICE custody,” Sabraw said. “The next morning, plaintiffs requested that defendants provide the basis for detaining these class members and requested that they not be removed,” the judge, a George W. Bush appointee, explained. “Despite Plaintiffs’ request, M.A.J. and three of his family members were removed later that day. Thereafter, the Court held a status conference in this case and subsequently issued an order stating defendants ‘shall not remove any additional Class Members or [qualified adult family members].'”

The ACLU reached out to the Trump administration on June 30 to “raise that A.M.R.F. had been removed” on June 29 and ask for more information about M.A.J.’s deportation. The government allegedly responded in an email on July 2 with an explanation.

“It appears not all relevant ICE personnel had received the court’s order until June 30,” the email said, according to the ACLU. “However, ICE informs DOJ that, as of June 30, ICE has taken steps to immediately implement the order.”

More from Law&Crime: ‘We the people need sleep, motherf—ers!’: Woman sues over ICE and Trump protest noise, says her ear has been bleeding and apartment is ‘akin to a torture chamber’ now

Regarding M.A.J. and his family, ICE informed the Justice Department that “ICE’s systems show that his mother reported to ICE in April 2024 that she would like to return to Guatemala and agreed with ICE’s plans to facilitate a removal flight.” For A.M.R.F., ICE claimed that the individual was removed on June 29 and that his “current whereabouts are unknown.”

The ACLU told the government it needed more information on why A.M.R.F. was taken into custody and the basis for his removal. The organization filed the motion when its requests to the government went unanswered, the ACLU said.

Sabraw gave the DOJ until 5 p.m. Monday to respond.