NEED TO KNOW

• Judge Coggins ruled DHS violated DACA protections and the Fifth Amendment by deporting Estrada Juarez
• ICE removed her within 24 hours of a green card appointment — citing a 1998 removal order issued when she was 15
• Administration must facilitate her return by March 30 or face contempt; DOJ says the court has no jurisdiction

SACRAMENTO, CA (TDR) — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to return a DACA recipient to the United States after finding that ICE deported her in violation of active legal protections — less than 24 hours after she appeared at a federal building to pursue a green card.

The big picture: Maria de Jesus Estrada Juarez’s removal has become a test case for whether DACA’s protections carry legal weight or exist only at the administration’s discretion — a question courts have now answered twice in her favor, even as the Justice Department insists judges have no power to intervene.

• Estrada Juarez came to the U.S. at 15 and lived in Sacramento for 27 years, working as a regional manager for Motel 6 and raising a U.S. citizen daughter
• She held active DACA status when ICE detained and removed her on February 19, 2026 — a status the court called “undisputedly active”
• Her case echoes the Kilmar Abrego Garcia deportation, which the Supreme Court also ordered remedied — a precedent Judge Coggins cited directly in her ruling

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

Why it matters: The ruling puts the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement practices directly in conflict with the judiciary for the second time in months — and sets up another confrontation over whether the executive branch will comply.

• About 516,000 people currently hold DACA status; the administration deported at least 86 DACA recipients and detained more than 261 in 2025 alone
• Estrada Juarez’s daughter, 22, is a U.S. citizen who watched her mother detained and described weeks of feeling “completely alone and afraid”
• The compliance deadline — March 30 — puts DHS under a court order just as the agency emerges from a 39-day shutdown and a leadership transition to new Secretary Markwayne Mullin

Driving the news: U.S. District Judge Dena Coggins issued the return order Monday, finding that the speed of Estrada Juarez’s removal — not just its legal basis — was itself a constitutional violation.

• ICE detained Estrada Juarez at a February 18 green card hearing and removed her the following day, citing a 1998 deportation order entered when she was 15
• Coggins rejected the government’s claim that the 1998 order was valid, noting her most recent U.S. entry in 2014 was via advance parole — a legal reentry that voided reinstatement of the old removal order
• The judge also rejected the DOJ argument that Estrada Juarez should have sought emergency legal relief in the 20-hour window between detention and deportation, writing that the government cannot violate rights “so long as it does so quickly”
• Estrada Juarez — “I am overwhelmed with relief and hope after learning about the court’s decision. Being separated from my daughter and my home has been incredibly painful.”

What they’re saying: Both sides responded to the ruling — though the administration has not said whether it will comply.

• Attorney Stacy Tolchin — “The court recognized what we have argued from the beginning: Maria’s deportation was unlawful because DACA status protected her from being removed from the United States. This ruling will reunite her with her U.S. citizen daughter.”
• DHS spokesperson, prior to ruling, defending the deportation — “She illegally re-entered the U.S. — a felony. She was arrested and her final order reinstated.”
• Rep. Delia C. Ramirez and Rep. Sylvia Garcia, in a prior letter to DHS, characterized the agency’s accounting of DACA deportations as demonstrating “gross incompetence or intentional misdirection”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

Yes, but: A court order to return Estrada Juarez does not guarantee her return — and the administration’s track record on compliance with judicial orders to bring back deportees is, at best, contested.

• The DOJ argued the court “had no power to intervene,” signaling the administration may contest or delay rather than comply
• Kilmar Abrego Garcia was eventually returned to the U.S. after a Supreme Court order — but only after months of resistance, and he was subsequently indicted in what his attorneys call a retaliatory prosecution
• DHS has not yet responded to the ruling; the department’s posture under the new secretary remains untested in court-ordered return scenarios

Between the lines: The government’s legal theory — that DACA merely “deprioritizes” deportation rather than conferring legal protection — is directly at odds with the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling preserving DACA, which Coggins said treated the program as conferring “affirmative relief,” not mere discretion. What the administration hasn’t said: if that theory holds, every DACA holder is potentially deportable regardless of active status.

• The administration’s framing — that it is simply enforcing a lawfully issued 1998 order — sidesteps the legal significance of Estrada Juarez’s 2014 advance parole reentry, which immigration attorneys say legally reset her status
• Congressional Democrats have demanded a full accounting of all DACA deportations; the administration has not provided one — leaving open the question of how many similar cases exist

What’s next:

• Administration must facilitate Estrada Juarez’s return to the U.S. by March 30 per Judge Coggins’s order
• DOJ is expected to challenge jurisdiction; a compliance hearing could follow if the deadline is missed
• Case joins a growing body of DACA deportation litigation that may ultimately force a new Supreme Court ruling on DACA’s enforceable protections
• New DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin’s response to court-ordered returns will be watched as an early signal of the administration’s posture on judicial compliance

If Congress funds most of DHS while deferring the ICE fight to reconciliation — what metrics would tell us whether that’s a real resolution or a repackaged stalemate?

Sources

This report was compiled using information from Politico, NOTUS, The Independent, Times of San Diego, ABC10 Sacramento, and official court documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10