During a Wednesday hearing, a DOJ lawyer admitted that a colleague made unverified claims to a federal judge. This admission came after attorneys who halted Labor Day weekend deportations of “unaccompanied” minors presented documentation proving that the statement “all of these children have their parents or guardians in Guatemala requesting their return” was inaccurate.

As initially reported by Law&Crime regarding L.G.M.L. et al. v. Kristi Noem, the Trump administration intended to execute numerous deportations over the holiday weekend, with planes reportedly on standby, ready to depart. However, plaintiff attorneys swiftly acted, obtaining a temporary restraining order from U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan early that Sunday morning to block the action.

Sooknanan, appointed by President Joe Biden and narrowly confirmed in December 2024, convened a hearing that afternoon. At that session, DOJ attorney Drew Ensign asserted that the Guatemalan government had requested the return of these children and stated that all children had parents or guardians requesting their return to Guatemala.

During the hearing, as reported live and later by Lawfare’s Anna Bower, an attorney from the National Immigration Law Center representing the plaintiffs challenged this assertion, noting that some minors feared returning to Guatemala. It was also mentioned that their parents hadn’t requested their return. Furthermore, Congress has established a “special statutory scheme to ensure that unaccompanied minors receive enhanced protection and care when the government seeks to deport them from the United States.”

In contrast to another prominent deportation case, the government adhered to the TRO. When Sooknanan’s emergency Labor Day weekend duty concluded, the case was reassigned to U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, appointed by Donald Trump.

Since that time, the plaintiffs submitted documentation from the government of Guatemala and its National Attorney General’s Office that directly undercut what Ensign had said in support of the Trump administration’s efforts to move forward with the deportations.

The exhibit filed Monday stated the Guatemalan government in August “conducted home visits and issued reports, and was able to prepare psychosocial or investigation reports for the families of 115 adolescents.”

Guatemala said it “found” that “50 family resources (parents) who were willing to welcome back their children if they were to return, with the caveat that none of them was requesting their return, indicating their desire to consider first the viability of the children staying in the United States.”

“It should be noted that in one of the reports, the parents stated that if their daughter were to return, they would do everything possible to get her out of the country again, because she had received death threats and therefore could not live in this country,” the report continued, before stating that dozens of other parents “expressed annoyance when this Office went to their residences, rejecting the request to conduct an assessment, sometimes in an intimidating manner.”

The discrepancy came to a head on Wednesday in Kelly’s court during a preliminary injunction hearing, as the judge questioned DOJ attorney Sarah Welch about whether the government was still standing by its claims that “all” of the children’s parents were requesting their return to Guatemala.

To that end, Judge Kelly notes that Drew Ensign told Judge Sooknanan that all of the parents requested the return of the children. He cites a Guatemalan government report, published by Reuters days later, which says that none of the parents requested/wanted their return.

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) September 10, 2025 at 2:34 PM

Welch basically says she can’t make any representations on that point. The audio is poor, but she says something to the effect that a record hasn’t been developed on that point.

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) September 10, 2025 at 2:37 PM

Judge asks if he should treat the government’s earlier representation as withdrawn. Welch says she can’t make representations on that point.

Judge Kelly says ok, so I should treat that as withdrawn.

Then he asks if the gov’s plans have changed based on info that parents didn’t request return.

— Anna Bower (@annabower.bsky.social) September 10, 2025 at 2:40 PM

Welch, according to Bower, stated she “can’t affirmatively represent that” what Ensign said “is correct” and thus agreed to withdraw it.

Politico reported that Welch also said it was “unfortunate that the children were frightened and pulled out in the middle of the night.”