A federal judge in California issued a ruling on Tuesday requiring the Trump administration to temporarily reinstate legal support for tens of thousands of migrant children residing in the United States without a parent or guardian.
On March 21, the Republican administration ended a contract with the Acacia Center for Justice, which offers legal services to unaccompanied migrant children under the age of 18 through a network of legal aid organizations working in conjunction with the center. Eleven subcontractor organizations filed a lawsuit, arguing that 26,000 children faced losing their legal representation. Acacia was not involved as a plaintiff in this case.
These organizations contended that, according to a 2008 anti-trafficking law, the government is required to provide essential legal representation to vulnerable children.
U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín from San Francisco granted a temporary restraining order late Tuesday, stating that advocates presented valid concerns regarding potential violations of the 2008 law by the administration, thereby necessitating a return to the previous status while the case is unresolved. This order will take effect on Wednesday and remain valid until April 16.
“The Court additionally concludes that ongoing funding for legal representation for unaccompanied minors promotes efficiency and equity within the immigration system,” she noted.
This marks the third legal challenge faced by the Trump administration’s immigration policies within a week, although all outcomes may be temporary as the cases progress. Last Friday, a federal judge in Boston ruled that individuals with final deportation orders must be afforded a “meaningful opportunity” to contest their removal to a country other than their home nation. On Monday, another federal judge in San Francisco suspended plans to revoke protections for countless Venezuelans, including 350,000 individuals whose legal status is set to expire on April 7.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 established special provisions to safeguard migrant children who cannot navigate a complicated immigration system independently. The plaintiffs reported that some of their clients are too young to communicate and others are too traumatized and lack proficiency in English.
According to the law, the government must ensure “to the greatest extent practicable” that all children entering the country unaccompanied receive legal representation to protect them from mistreatment, exploitation, and trafficking.
The defendants, including the Department of Health and Human Services and its Office of Refugee Resettlement, asserted that taxpayers are not obliged to finance direct legal aid for migrant children at a time when the government is seeking to cut costs. They also claimed that district courts lack jurisdiction over a contract termination that was set to expire at the end of March.
Acacia holds an agreement with the government to provide legal orientations, which include “know your rights” clinics.
However, the plaintiffs clarified that they are not seeking the reinstatement of the contract; instead, they are advocating for a return to the prior arrangement, utilizing funds allocated by Congress to ensure children have legal representation, as stated by Karen Tumlin of the Justice Action Center during a court hearing on Tuesday.
She emphasized that the administration cannot simply eliminate funding without providing clarity on who will assist these children.
“They must ensure that there is a viable plan to the greatest extent practicable,” she stated.
Jonathan Ross from the U.S. Department of Justice remarked that the government continues to fund legally mandated activities, such as the “know your rights” clinics, and noted that legal clinics can still offer their services at no charge.
“They are still permitted to deliver those services on a pro bono basis,” he explained.
Judge Martínez-Olguín was appointed by President Biden.
