U.S. deportation push exposes systemic breakdowns and wrongful removals

A surge in federal immigration removals has revealed persistent operational failures across agencies responsible for tracking, communicating and executing deportations. In multiple cases, people were removed abroad before judges’ stays, renewals or protective orders could be processed and relayed to the units arranging transfers, prompting federal judges to order returns or to enjoin further removals. Lawyers and advocates describe a cluster of similar cases — one attorney said they represent roughly a dozen plaintiffs with wrongful‑removal claims — and groups tracking protected populations report dozens of incidents involving people with DACA or other pending protections. The government’s growing reliance on transfers through third countries has intensified the problem when those states re‑transfer detainees to their countries of origin despite U.S. court rulings or stays. The decentralised nature of detention, court calendars and program administration has created information choke points that make it hard for judges and counsel to locate people after they move through multiple custody systems. A high‑profile enforcement operation in Minneapolis that resulted in a civilian death and mass protests accelerated political and legal pushback, prompting the White House to dispatch a senior border coordinator, adjust public messaging and redeploy personnel. That Minneapolis incident helped crystallize a broader, state‑by‑state split: progressive states are moving to block cooperation and document federal tactics while conservative states are pursuing incentives and statutory changes to align with federal priorities. Those dueling approaches are producing new reporting lines, oversight proposals and legal fights over preemption and immunity that could shape enforcement practices for years. Operationally, courts and attorneys point to failures in notice procedures, record‑sharing and unit‑level execution as root causes; procedurally weak removals increase the risk of sanctions, mandatory returns and additional litigation. Diplomatically, rapid transfers and third‑country routings create friction with partner countries and complicate efforts to honor U.S. judicial protections. Fiscal and logistical burdens are mounting as agencies respond to court orders to recover or repatriate individuals and face expanded litigation costs. Altogether, the enforcement tempo that prioritizes numerical targets over safeguards is producing backlogs of contested cases, amplified oversight, and an environment where local mobilization and state policies can significantly constrain federal tactics.