Judge orders feds to restore legal funding for migrant children

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge ordered the Trump administration late Tuesday night to temporarily restore legal funding to thousands of undocumented children who are in the United States without a parent or other legal guardian.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin, a Joe Biden appointee, wrote in her seven-page order that the plaintiffs — immigrant rights groups who sued last week — raised serious concerns that the government was required to ensure unaccompanied immigrant minors receive counsel in immigration court under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.

“The court additionally finds that the continued funding of legal representation for unaccompanied children promotes efficiency and fairness within the immigration system,” Martinez-Olguin wrote.

The temporary restraining order stops the government from withdrawing any services or funds until April 16. Martinez-Olguin wrote that a preliminary injunction hearing may be set in the meantime.

“Terminating funding for direct legal representation for unaccompanied children, without any plan to ensure continuity in representation, potentially violates Congress’s express directive in the TVRPA and [Office of Refugee Resettlement’s] own commitments in the Foundational Rule,” Martinez-Olguin wrote.

The plaintiffs, including organizations like the Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, and the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said in their complaint filed last week that the Trump administration’s actions violate federal law and put children at immediate risk because it abruptly cut funds that allowed nonprofit groups to provide legal representation to migrant children navigating the complex U.S. immigration system.

The defendants named in the complaint are the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of Refugee Resettlement and the Department of the Interior.

Counsel for the plaintiffs and the government did not immediately reply to requests for comment on the judge’s ruling.

At a hearing Tuesday morning, Carson Scott, counsel for the plaintiffs, said irreparable harm and the balance of the equities are firmly in the plaintiffs’ favor.

“On March 21, defendants abruptly, and with no explanation, terminated the contract that enabled plaintiffs and their sister legal service providers to provide critical services to thousands of unaccompanied children nationwide,” Scott said. “The defendant’s actions have put plaintiffs in an impossible dilemma. Plaintiffs collectively have an ethical obligation to thousands of children that are detained and non-detained, and continuing to represent them with no funding presents an existential threat to their organization.”

Scott said that the only people in danger of harm are the thousands of children, many of whom cannot speak English or are non-verbal, who will now have to face immigration court alone.

“It should go without saying that having legal representation and protection for pre-verbal tender age children serves a public interest and aids the government. When children have suffered abuse in facilities, we’re there to advocate for the child’s needs. Independent nongovernmental organizations like plaintiffs serve crucial roles in ensuring the safety and well-being of unaccompanied children, which no doubt serves the public interest,” Scott said.

The groups are seeking a court order to declare the defendants’ actions a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, require the continuation of funding for legal representation and issue a nationwide injunction preventing cuts to funding for legal counsel for unaccompanied children.

Jonathan Ross, a Department of Justice attorney, said that the plaintiffs were seeking to override the federal agencies’ discretion and that the immigrant rights groups are still free to represent their clients if they choose to do so.

“There’s nothing that prevents any legal service provider or duly licensed attorney from providing these vulnerable children pro bono representation. They’re still free to do that,” he said. “Yes, children who are in federal care and custody shall have access to counsel, and that counsel should be provided as practicable. But that’s inherently discretionary, and it’s up to executives in the agency that runs the program to allocate those resources accordingly.”

The plaintiffs said in their complaint that in March, the Interior Department issued an order to the groups to “immediately stop work” on ongoing representations despite having congressionally appropriated funds available through Sept. 30, 2027.

The groups argue that the funding termination violates the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which mandates that the government “shall ensure, to the greatest extent practicable,” that unaccompanied children receive legal counsel. The immigrant rights groups assert that the funding cut is particularly egregious given that Congress appropriated more than $5 billion for fiscal year 2024 to deliver services to unaccompanied children, including funding for legal representation.

The groups said that more than 26,000 children are at risk of losing legal representation because of that order. Most of those children arrived in the U.S. without parents or a legal guardian, and many do not speak English.

The complaint has three primary claims under the Administrative Procedure Act: that the funding termination is not in accordance with law, violates the Accardi Doctrine by failing to adhere to the government’s own policies and is arbitrary and capricious.