Jose Serrano, a serving U.S. soldier who completed three tours in Afghanistan, said his wife, Deisy Rivera Ortega, was arrested on April 14 during an appointment with immigration officials as the couple pursued steps toward securing her permanent residency.

“A person opened the door, escorted us through the hallway, and at the end of the hallway, my wife got arrested,” Serrano said, adding that he was not provided documentation or an explanation at the time of the detention.

Rivera Ortega, a native of El Salvador, is being held at the El Paso Service Processing Center and has challenged her detention in U.S. District Court. Her legal team has also sought to block any deportation to Mexico, arguing she has no ties to the country and citing restrictions on travel there for active-duty U.S.

troops.Her attorney, Matthew James Kozik, said Rivera Ortega held a valid work permit and had previously been granted withholding of removal to El Salvador, a form of protection that prevents deportation to a country where an individual may face harm.

The Department of Homeland Security said Rivera Ortega entered the United States illegally in 2016 and was issued a final order of removal by an immigration judge in December 2019.

In a statement, the agency said that work authorization does not confer legal status and that she remains in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody pending removal proceedings. It did not specify whether deportation to Mexico was under consideration.

The case comes amid policy changes by the administration that have reduced discretionary protections previously extended to military families. Rivera Ortega had applied under the “parole in place” program, which has historically provided certain undocumented spouses of U.S. service members a pathway toward legal residency.

However, the Department of Homeland Security last April rescinded a 2022 policy that treated a family member’s military service as a significant mitigating factor in immigration enforcement decisions. The revised guidance states that military service alone does not exempt individuals from enforcement of immigration laws.

Serrano said he visited his wife at the detention facility on Sunday, where they communicated through a partition, as legal proceedings continue.

The court’s brief and unsigned order did not provide reasoning, as is typical in emergency rulings. However, two liberal justices — Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor — issued a sharp dissent. Justice Jackson accused the majority of “botching” the legal balancing test, warning of “devastating consequences” for over 500,000 migrants who now face the threat of deportation.

The Temporary Protected Status (TPS) program had offered a two-year safe haven to people fleeing political turmoil, economic collapse, or natural disasters in their home countries. Critics of the administration’s policy say the sudden revocation could lead to the largest mass removal of legal residents in modern U.S. history.

Economic Impact and Humanitarian Concerns

Advocates and labor unions underscored the critical role these migrants play in the American economy, particularly in essential industries such as healthcare, construction, and manufacturing. At one auto parts factory, nearly one in five workers is reportedly under the TPS program.

“These are people who stepped up to support our economy during national shortages,” said one union representative. “Now the government is pulling the rug from under them.”

City governments and counties that have welcomed TPS holders joined legal challenges, citing potential “severe economic and societal harms” if the deportations proceed.

A Battle Between Executive Power and Judicial Oversight

The Trump administration maintains that the migrants’ continued presence is “against national interests,” and argues that courts have no authority to interfere. The Department of Homeland Security insists that the program, originally expanded by the Biden administration as a deterrent to illegal crossings, has instead backfired — encouraging more arrivals and straining immigration enforcement efforts.

Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, speaking earlier this year at a border security summit in Phoenix, stated that the administration is determined to “restore lawful order and national sovereignty.”

However, federal courts have shown resistance. A district judge in Massachusetts, Indira Talwani, ruled that early termination of TPS protections must be assessed individually, rather than through a mass cancellation. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, temporarily halting the administration’s plan.

The Biden-era policy, now under attack, had sought to stabilize migration patterns by offering legal pathways to those escaping crises — a contrast to Trump’s strategy of swift deportation and tightened border enforcement.

Looking Ahead

Immigration rights groups are expected to continue legal challenges, with the case likely to return to the courts in full. In the meantime, over half a million people now face deep uncertainty about their futures in the U.S.

For families, employers, and communities across the country, the court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the nation’s immigration debate — one that intertwines humanitarian responsibilities with questions of law, sovereignty, and national identity.