A federal judge’s order just sent shockwaves through President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, immigration advocates, and administration critics are all taking sides after a Guatemalan man, O.C.G., was flown back to the United States following a wrongful deportation.
According to the New York Post, the Trump administration was compelled by the court to bring back O.C.G., who had been deported to Mexico despite stating a credible fear of persecution. This ruling marks a significant development in the ongoing legal battles over the administration’s aggressive deportation policies.
O.C.G.’s return is the first known case in which a migrant deported under Trump’s hardline agenda has been successfully brought back due to an order from a federal judge. The case is stirring debate among immigration advocates, government officials, and those tracking the administration’s approach to migrant rights and legal protections.
Judge Brian Murphy, based in Boston, issued the order on May 23 after discovering that the Department of Justice relied on incorrect information when claiming O.C.G. was not afraid of returning to Mexico. The judge’s intervention came after the government admitted its error—an admission that has cast a spotlight on procedural failures within the immigration system.
Court documents reveal that O.C.G., a gay man who fled Guatemala in 2024 following death threats over his sexuality, entered the United States through Mexico in May 2024. Despite an immigration judge’s February ruling that he should not be returned to Guatemala, authorities deported him to Mexico just two days later.
O.C.G.’s lawyers said that, after arriving in Mexico, he faced a dangerous choice: remain detained for months while applying for asylum or return to Guatemala, where he feared for his safety. Ultimately, he chose to return to Guatemala and go into hiding, further complicating his legal and personal situation.
Officials within the Trump administration have strongly criticized Judge Murphy’s actions. Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, described Murphy as an “activist” judge whose ruling granted O.C.G. “an opportunity to prove why he should be granted asylum to a country that he has had no past connection to.” The administration’s frustration highlights the tension between the executive branch’s immigration enforcement goals and judicial oversight.
O.C.G. was able to re-enter the United States on a commercial flight and is currently in ICE custody, according to Trina Realmuto, his attorney with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance. He is being transported to a detention facility in Arizona as his legal proceedings continue.
The case has been closely watched because it represents a rare instance where the administration complied with a court order to facilitate the return of a deported migrant. Other cases, such as that of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia—who was deported to El Salvador in March despite a protective order—have not resulted in similar outcomes, with Garcia still stranded abroad.
Legal experts and immigrant advocates argue that the O.C.G. case underscores deeper problems with how the Trump administration handles asylum seekers and deportations. They point to Murphy’s injunction, which blocks the government from rapidly deporting migrants to third countries without first considering their safety concerns. The injunction, currently under review by the Supreme Court, is part of a broader class-action lawsuit aimed at protecting due process rights for migrants.
Murphy recently found that the administration had violated his order by attempting to deport a group of migrants to South Sudan, where they faced danger. Those migrants are now being held in Djibouti pending further screening. These incidents have fueled criticism that the administration’s policies sometimes override individual protections and legal requirements.
While O.C.G. is now back on U.S. soil, his future remains uncertain. The Supreme Court’s pending decision on Murphy’s injunction could determine whether similar cases result in returns or if swift deportations will continue. Advocates warn that the stakes are especially high for vulnerable migrants like O.C.G., whose lives may be at risk if returned to countries where they face persecution.
O.C.G., the Guatemalan man whose deportation and return have become the center of a national debate, remains in ICE custody after arriving in California. His case was triggered by a judicial ruling that revealed errors in the government’s handling of his asylum claim and deportation process.
President Trump’s administration, under scrutiny for these procedural mistakes, is now awaiting a Supreme Court decision that could impact the fate of O.C.G. and others in similar circumstances. This case is being closely watched by both critics and supporters of the administration’s immigration policies.
The outcome will determine not only O.C.G.’s future in the United States but also the extent to which federal courts can intervene in deportation practices, especially when mistakes threaten the safety and rights of asylum seekers.
