Since the issuance of a new immigrant registration form by the Department of Homeland Security on April 11, legal challenges have arisen as prosecutors invoke a 1940 statute to charge dozens of individuals for failing to register, a misdemeanor carrying penalties of up to six months in prison and fines of $5,000.
While many of these cases remain in their initial phases, at least six instances have surfaced where defendants challenged their charges. Courts have either dismissed these cases or they have been withdrawn by prosecutors, as highlighted in analysis by the Washington Post.
Judges have expressed skepticism towards the prosecutors’ reliance on a statute that has seen little enforcement over the past fifty years, questioning the appropriateness of penalizing individuals who were unaware they had to comply with a requirement only recently implemented.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael B. North dismissed charges against five migrants in Louisiana on May 19, noting the lack of evidence suggesting that they were aware of their obligation to register. He emphasized that until very recently, there was no means for them to comply with such a requirement.
In a notable case, one individual was arrested on the very day the new registration form became available on the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) website.
The judicial pushback reflects an emerging confrontation between the Trump administration and the federal judicial system concerning the administration’s extensive use of legislative provisions in immigration law to pursue an aggressive deportation policy.
Courts had previously intervened to halt this approach by blocking the administration’s attempts to use an obscure wartime law for detaining immigrant gang members and reinstating individuals removed from the country in violation of due process. Similar skepticism has been voiced regarding attempts to charge immigrants with trespassing in military zones along the southern border.
The judicial dismissals of failure-to-register charges align with concerns regarding the awareness of the individuals charged, many of whom have lived in the United States for extended periods without previous infractions.
Matthew Tragesser, a spokesperson for USCIS, argued that the new enforcement of the registration requirement had seen success, with over 57,000 immigrants reportedly signing up for the registry, although specific details regarding these individuals have not been disclosed.
“For the first time in years, the statute under the Immigration and Nationality Act is being applied, clearly indicating that noncompliance is a crime,” Tragesser stated.
Upon taking office, President Trump promptly issued multiple executive actions aimed at toughening immigration policy, one of which mandated the DHS and the Justice Department to resume enforcement of the registration requirement—all set against the backdrop of World War II anxieties surrounding the presence of hostile agents in the U.S.
Initially, noncitizens were required to register their presence at local post offices and carry proof of this registration. However, enforcement largely ceased after World War II, despite the law remaining intact.
The registration mandate saw a temporary revival under President George W. Bush post-9/11 for individuals from predominantly Muslim nations, resulted in over 10,000 detentions, and was ultimately dismantled in 2016 under President Obama.
Despite the historical context, prosecutions for failing to register remained infrequent until the Trump administration revived this aspect of immigration law.
In a directive to federal prosecutors, Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasized the usage of all available criminal statutes to tackle what the administration perceives as a surge of illegal immigration.
As soon as the new registration process was established in March, immigration authorities moved forward with drafting regulations for an online registration form, though it was only available in English.
Individuals with valid visas or legal permanent residency, along with those who had prior interactions with immigration authorities, were exempt from registering as their details were already in governmental records.
USCIS estimated that between 2.2 million and 3.2 million immigrants are now obligated to register. However, advocates for immigrants view the requirement as a precarious dilemma, as it nudges many towards registering—potentially exposing them to deportation—or retaining the status quo and facing criminal charges.
Angélica Salas, the executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, emphasized the significant implications of the registration requirement, warning individuals against signing up without legal counsel.
“It’s essentially a registry that carries consequences,” Salas remarked. “What we advise everyone is to avoid registration without seeking legal guidance. There’s no advantage.”
Her organization, along with other advocacy groups, sought legal redress in late March to contest the registration mandate, although a federal judge declined their request mere hours before the requirement became effective on April 11, citing insufficient evidence of harm.
Not long after this ruling, a group of federal prosecutors in Louisiana initiated one of the first prosecutions linked to the registry requirement.
Records indicate that at least 13 defendants have entered guilty pleas regarding charges of failing to register, resulting in either their deportation or placement in deportation proceedings. Yet, even some individuals who successfully disputed the criminal claims end up being removed from the country due to immigration judges deeming them unlawful residents.
Michelle Lapointe, the legal director of the American Immigration Council, noted the administration’s use of the failure-to-register law as a means of imposing low-level offenses on immigrants, as part of a broader effort to criminalize their status.
Lapointe criticized the approach as a misallocation of resources within the Department of Justice, highlighting constraints on prosecutorial capacity.
In a recent case in Phoenix, U.S. Magistrate Judge Deborah Fine noted that failure-to-register prosecutions were practically nonexistent during her tenure on the bench, labeling it a “not the most serious” offense.
She expressed uncertainty whether a defendant, Eduardo Prado Flores—a 25-year-old Mexican national—was even informed of the existence of the registry or willfully refused to comply as cited by the prosecutors.
The case faced further complications when James Schneider, the ICE agent responsible for its management, testified that agents had not received formal training on how to build a failure-to-register case before proceeding with charges against Prado Flores.
“It has unfolded rather rapidly and everything has been quite fluid regarding the changes on our end,” Schneider commented during the court proceedings.
At the conclusion of the hearings, Judge Fine remained doubtful about the strength of the prosecution’s case. “If this is all the United States has, I have concerns about putting my signature on this,” she stated, reflecting her skepticism.
Ultimately, just days later, prosecutors withdrew the case, further illustrating the challenges facing the administration’s enforcement strategy as judicial scrutiny intensifies.
image source from：https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/05/31/nation/migrants-criminally-charged-after-failing-register-with-us-government/
