In a rare and strongly worded ruling, a US federal court has ordered immigration authorities to facilitate the return of an Indian national who was deported to India in violation of a direct court order, calling the removal unlawful and a breach of judicial authority.

In a memorandum and order issued on January 9, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that Francisco D’Costa was deported on December 20, 2025, more than three hours after the court had explicitly prohibited the government from removing him from the United States. The court found that immigration authorities acted despite having notice of the judicial stay.

Earlier that day, the court had assumed jurisdiction over D’Costa’s habeas corpus petition and issued a clear directive stating that the government “shall not remove or deport” him without first obtaining permission from the court. Despite this, D’Costa was placed on a Turkish Airlines flight departing Houston at 2:55 p.m. for India.

Court records show that officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the US Attorney’s Office, and the detention facility were informed of the court’s order before the flight departed. The government later argued that the deportation was inadvertent, but the judge rejected that claim, stating that intent was irrelevant to the legality of the removal.

“The intent behind Petitioner’s unlawful removal—while relevant to contempt—has no bearing on the lawfulness of the removal,” the court said, underscoring that the violation itself was sufficient to warrant corrective action.

D’Costa, a native of India, has lived in the United States since 2009. In October 2025, an immigration judge granted him voluntary departure. However, after securing legal representation, D’Costa filed a motion to reopen his immigration case, citing changed country conditions in India and the risk of persecution following his conversion to Christianity.

Under federal immigration regulations, the filing of a motion to reopen automatically converts a voluntary departure order into a final order of removal. While the immigration judge denied a request for a stay of removal, the motion to reopen itself had not yet been adjudicated at the time D’Costa was deported.

The court noted that removing him before his motion was resolved risked depriving him of his statutory right to seek reopening of his case, raising serious due process concerns. The judge emphasised that such premature removal undermines the fairness and integrity of immigration proceedings.

The government argued that facilitating D’Costa’s return was unnecessary, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction and that he could continue legal proceedings from outside the United States. The court firmly rejected these arguments, ruling that returning D’Costa was essential to restore the legal posture that would have existed had the unlawful deportation not occurred.

Citing a unanimous US Supreme Court precedent, the court stated that facilitating the return of a noncitizen is an appropriate remedy when deportation occurs in violation of a judicial order.

The court directed immigration authorities to facilitate D’Costa’s return to the United States “as soon as possible” and ordered the government to submit, within five days, a detailed plan outlining the steps it will take to comply.

While the court declined at this stage to hold officials in contempt or impose monetary sanctions, it denied those requests without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of further action if the government fails to comply with the order.

The ruling is being viewed as a significant reaffirmation of judicial oversight in immigration enforcement and a warning against administrative actions that disregard court authority.