Dr. Abushamma, the papers said, was held for more than six hours at the airport, as arguments were being held in Judge Donnelly’s courtroom. And although her immigration lawyer tried to explain to customs agents that the judge was about to rule, the lawyer was ignored, the papers said. She was escorted onto a plane headed back to Saudi Arabia by two customs officials.

“One stood in front of her and the other stood behind her,” according to the papers. “Dr. Abushamma felt like they were trying to make sure that she did not escape, as though she was a criminal in custody.”

In court, lawyers for the immigrants said it remained unclear if people were removed from the country in violation of Judge Donnelly’s ruling, as Dr. Abushamma contends she was, and how many of them there might be. Though lawyers say they have repeatedly asked the government for a detailed list of those who were both detained and deported since the ruling went into effect, federal officials have not yet provided one. The government has said that no immigrants are currently in custody, but lawyers say that could be because some of them have already been improperly sent back to their homelands.

“It is unlikely we have found the entire universe of people who have been removed,” said Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, who argued for the immigrants at the hearing. Mr. Gelernt said that he would give the government another chance to furnish him with a list of detainees and those who were deported, but he added that if federal officials did not provide the list within “a short time” — perhaps as early as Friday — he would consider filing a contempt of court complaint against the administration.

The case may emerge as the first of its kind to decide whether the Trump administration disobeyed Judge Donnelly’s ruling to keep legal visa holders in the country.

Samuel Go, a lawyer for the Justice Department, said at the hearing that the government planned to file a motion to dismiss the entire case challenging Mr. Trump’s executive order, which, so far, has not been subject to a ruling on broad constitutional grounds.

While Mr. Gelernt and his colleagues have opposed the order, saying that it violates due process rights and discriminates against Muslims in contravention of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, they have not yet had the opportunity to make those arguments in court.