Reinhardt said Ortiz, who came to the U.S. in 1989, was well-established in Hawaii’s coffee farming industry, paid his taxes and had three U.S. citizen children from whom he would be torn away.
A U.S. Department of Justice spokeswoman, Nicole Navas, said the department declined comment.
Reinhardt’s opinion came as the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday sided with a Mexican immigrant who faced deportation after he was convicted of having consensual sex with his underage girlfriend.
The justices ruled unanimously that while Juan Esquivel-Quintana committed a crime under California law, his conduct did not violate federal immigration law.
Also Tuesday, a divided 11-judge panel of the 9th Circuit upheld a law that bars people who are in the country illegally from avoiding deportation if they are habitual drunks. The law considers regular drunks not to have good moral character.
The ruling overturned a decision by a smaller 9th Circuit panel that included Reinhardt that ruled that alcoholism is an illness, not a moral defect.
The rulings come against a backdrop of stepped up immigration enforcement by the Trump administration. U.S. immigration arrests increased nearly 40 percent in early 2017 from a comparable period last year, according to figures provided by immigration officials. However, actual deportations were down from late January to late April compared from a year ago.
In Hawaii Ortiz, 43, won a reprieve from deportation in 2014 and was seeking legal status on the basis that his wife and children are U.S. citizens when the government “without any explanation” ordered him in March to report for removal the next month, according to Reinhardt.
Ortiz appealed to the court in an effort to block the order. Now, he will be returned to Mexico and face a 10-year bar on his return, the judge said.
A call and email to Ortiz’s attorney, James Stanton, was not immediately returned.
Reinhardt is not the first federal judge to criticize an immigration move by the Trump administration.
A federal appeals court in Maryland earlier this month refused to reinstate the president’s revised travel ban on people from six Muslim-majority countries, with judges in the 10-3 majority calling the administration’s action discriminatory and its reasoning nonsensical.
In another rebuke, a federal judge in San Francisco blocked the administration’s attempt to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities