The US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has finalized a rule governing civil penalties for immigration violations, days after a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s earlier system for imposing the fines, Bloomberg Law reported on October 9, 2026.
The final rule retains the administration’s framework for civil immigration penalties but makes a significant change to the appeals process, allowing certain late appeals when delays in mail delivery prevent people from responding on time, according to Bloomberg Law.
The development comes amid a legal battle over the government’s use of steep financial penalties against immigrants who fail to leave the United States after receiving removal orders. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in July that it had issued more than 103,000 fines worth a combined $84 billion.
Also read: Trump administration offers migrant children $3,000 to voluntarily leave US; all you need to know
ICE changes appeals process as legal battle continues
The final regulation follows a September 30 order by US District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. in Massachusetts, which stayed the earlier interim rule while litigation continues. The ruling blocked enforcement of fines imposed under that rule after it took effect.
{{/usCountry}}The final regulation follows a September 30 order by US District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. in Massachusetts, which stayed the earlier interim rule while litigation continues. The ruling blocked enforcement of fines imposed under that rule after it took effect.
{{/usCountry}}The judge found that the government’s approach likely conflicted with federal immigration law and that the agencies had failed to follow required procedures when introducing changes to the penalty system.
The lawsuit challenged the process ICE used to impose fines, including the reduced notice requirements and shorter period available to contest penalties. The earlier rules also transferred responsibility for appeals from the Justice Department’s Board of Immigration Appeals to DHS.
According to Bloomberg Law report, the newly finalized rule makes one significant adjustment: it permits late-filed appeals in cases involving mail-delivery delays.
The change addresses one aspect of the process for challenging penalties, although the broader legal dispute over the administration’s enforcement system remains important.
Fines can reach $1.8 million for some immigrants
The penalties target several categories of immigration-related violations, including failing to depart voluntarily within an authorized period, willfully refusing to leave after a final removal order and certain unlawful entry-related conduct.
Under the administration’s enforcement approach, some immigrants who remain in the country after a final removal order have faced fines of $998 per day. Because penalties may be assessed retroactively for up to five years, the maximum amount in some cases can reach approximately $1.8 million.
DHS announced in July that it had issued more than 103,000 civil fines totaling $84 billion. The agency has defended the penalties as a means of enforcing immigration law and encouraging people without lawful permission to remain in the country to depart.
However, the policy has faced legal challenges from immigrants and advocacy organizations. The plaintiffs argued that the government’s procedures failed to provide adequate safeguards and did not properly account for individual circumstances.
In its September ruling, the Massachusetts court found that the government’s procedures raised serious legal concerns, including whether officials had adequately explained the conduct underlying individual penalties.
What immigrants should know
The final rule does not eliminate the need to respond to immigration notices or resolve outstanding cases. People who receive penalty notices should pay close attention to deadlines and the procedures for challenging them.
The latest development also does not mean that every previously issued fine has been cancelled. The court’s order concerns enforcement of penalties imposed under the earlier interim rule, while litigation continues.