Three U.S. citizen children—ages 2, 4–5, and 7—were removed to Honduras on April 25, 2025, after their mothers were arrested during check-ins with an immigration contractor in New Orleans. The mothers and the children's legal team allege the mothers were never offered a genuine choice to keep their children in the United States and were held without access to lawyers or family; the Department of Homeland Security has disputed this, stating the mothers were offered the option to designate a U.S.
relative to care for the children instead. A civil rights lawsuit filed in July 2025 seeks to return the children and their families to the United States and to establish whether the government violated due process by removing U.S. citizens without their parents' informed consent. The case highlights a gap in immigration enforcement procedures: no formal rule requires ICE to confirm a parent's voluntary consent before deporting a noncitizen mother or father alongside their citizen children.
Table of Contents
- What Happened in April 2025
- The Consent Dispute
- Medical Care and the Sick Child
- The Lawsuit and Legal Claims
- Status and Next Steps
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Happened in April 2025
On April 22–24, 2025, the two mothers and their three children were arrested in New Orleans, Louisiana, during what the families believed were routine check-ins with an ice contractor. All three children were born in Louisiana and hold U.S. citizenship. The families had been enrolled in the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program (ISAP), which allows noncitizens to remain in their communities while their immigration cases proceed through the courts, rather than being detained.
Within hours of arrest, on April 25, 2025, all five were deported to Honduras. The lawsuit alleges that the mothers "were never given a choice as to whether their children should be deported with them" and that they were held without contact with lawyers or family members. The federal judge overseeing the case later stated he had "strong suspicion that the Government just deported a U.S. citizen with no meaningful process" regarding the youngest child.
The Consent Dispute
The core legal disagreement centers on whether the mothers consented to their children's deportation. The lawsuit states that one mother "explicitly opposed her U.S. citizen children's deportation and had never provided consent for such action." The mothers' lawyers argue the deportation occurred during an incommunicado detention with no access to counsel, making any consent meaningless.
dhs and border official Tom Homan have countered that the mothers were offered a choice: be deported with their children, or have ICE place the children with a designated U.S. relative. Homan stated, "That's a parent's decision, it's not a government decision." The dispute turns on whether an offer presented during emergency custody conditions—without time to consult a lawyer or explore alternatives—constitutes meaningful consent under constitutional standards.
Medical Care and the Sick Child
One of the three children, identified in court records as Romeo, is a 4–5-year-old with stage 4 kidney cancer who required ongoing medical treatment. The lawsuit alleges that ICE failed to arrange cancer treatment for him in Honduras and that the deportation interfered with his needed medical care. Kidney cancer in children is life-threatening without continuous treatment; the removal of a patient mid-treatment course can be fatal.
DHS responded that ICE "makes sure that treatment is available in the country to which the illegal alien is being removed" when health issues exist. However, access to pediatric oncology care varies widely internationally, and Honduras' capacity for stage 4 childhood kidney cancer treatment is significantly limited compared to U.S. facilities. The specific treatment Romeo received before deportation and his access to equivalent care afterward remain disputed.
The Lawsuit and Legal Claims
The civil rights lawsuit, J.L.V. v. Acuna, was filed July 31, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of two families. Legal counsel includes the National Immigration Project, Gibson Dunn, Most & Associates, and Ware Immigration, a combination of civil rights and immigration law firms.
The lawsuit names immigration officials and seeks declaratory relief stating the deportations were unlawful, monetary damages for the families, and an order returning the citizen children and their families to the United States. The case was assigned to District Judge Brian A. Jackson. The legal theory rests on constitutional due process grounds: that U.S. citizens cannot be removed from the country without due process of law, and that their parents' presence does not strip them of that right. The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the government's ISAP program—designed to allow noncitizens to remain in the community—included any safeguards to protect the citizen children of enrolled participants.
Status and Next Steps
As of late 2025, the lawsuit remains ongoing and no judgment or settlement has been reached. The children and their mothers have not been returned to the United States. The case will likely determine whether the government is required to obtain documented, voluntary consent from a parent before removing a U.S. citizen child alongside a noncitizen parent, and whether the government must ensure medical continuity for a deported child with a serious condition.
If the families prevail, the decision could reshape how ICE handles mixed-citizenship families during deportation proceedings. If the government prevails, it may establish that parents can effectively consent to their citizen children's deportation during the arrest and deportation process. The case's outcome will affect whether this scenario can occur again without legal consequence.
Frequently Asked Questions
Were the children U.S. citizens?
Yes. All three were born in Louisiana and hold U.S. citizenship by birth. U.S. citizenship cannot be stripped from a person without due process.
Why were the mothers in ICE custody?
The mothers were noncitizens enrolled in the ISAP (Intensive Supervision Appearance Program), which allows noncitizens to live in the community rather than be detained. They were arrested during routine check-ins with an ICE contractor.
What does the government say about the consent?
DHS states the mothers were offered a choice: be deported with their children, or designate a U.S. relative to care for them. The mothers' lawyers argue this offer, made during custody without legal counsel, was not meaningful consent.
What is the lawsuit asking for?
The lawsuit seeks to return the children and their families to the United States, declare the deportation unlawful, and award damages to the families.