Legal aid organizations that pursued legal action against the Trump administration following the termination of services for migrant children lacking parental accompaniment in the country, continue to face uncertainties after a federal judge in California mandated a reinstatement of direct legal support. The ongoing challenges come after U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, presiding in San Francisco, ruled on Tuesday in response to a case brought forward by these aid groups. This was triggered by the Department of Health and Human Services and its Office of Refugee Resettlement’s decision on March 21 to end a contract supporting the Acacia Center for Justice.
Judge Martínez-Olguín highlighted the legitimate concerns raised by the advocates regarding possible violations of a 2008 anti-trafficking statute when the funding for legal representation was withdrawn without ensuring counsel was provided beforehand. As a result, she issued a temporary order to maintain the existing state of affairs while the lawsuit proceeds, an order that took effect on Wednesday and will remain until April 16. The judge emphasized that funding legal representation for these unaccompanied children enhances efficiency and fairness in the immigration system.
Despite the court order, aid providers remain uncertain about the recommencement of federal funding for these services. The Acacia Center for Justice, in collaboration with a network of legal aid groups, provides critical legal services to unaccompanied minors under 18. These efforts became strained after the contract’s cancellation, prompting eleven subcontractor groups to file a lawsuit, fearing that approximately 26,000 children might lose their legal representation. These groups argue that the government has a responsibility to devise a plan to handle pending cases effectively.
While Acacia has not been directly involved in the lawsuit, spokesperson Bilal Askaryar expressed frustration over the lack of guidance from the government regarding forthcoming actions. The situation remains ambiguous for lawyers working with these vulnerable children, leaving them in a precarious position.
Additionally, attorney Alvaro M. Huerta, associated with the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, mentioned that they await governmental instructions on compliance with the court’s directive. In the interim, legal aid organizations face dilemmas regarding staffing and the intake of new clients. Despite the financial uncertainty, many organizations committedly represent the children in court, driven by professional and ethical considerations.
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 mandates that the government, as far as practical, provide legal counsel for all children arriving alone, aiding them in navigating the intricate immigration system. Plaintiffs in the case pointed out that many children are extremely young, some cannot communicate verbally, and others are dealing with trauma or a lack of English proficiency.
Government lawyers argue that there is no taxpayer obligation to fund direct legal aid for migrant children, especially amid fiscal efforts to reduce expenditures. They also contested the jurisdiction of district courts over a contract termination that was imminent regardless. Meanwhile, Acacia remains contracted to provide legal orientations, such as “know your rights” sessions, which Jonathan Ross from the U.S. Department of Justice noted as a legal requirement motivated by pro bono services.
During proceedings, Karen Tumlin from the Justice Action Center contended that the administration cannot arbitrarily halt funding without clarifying who will support these children, particularly when Congress has allocated finances for their care. She stressed the necessity for a well-structured plan.
Judge Martínez-Olguín’s temporary order, stemming from her appointment by President Joe Biden, prevents the government from retracting services or the allocated Congressional funds. The legal services contract was originally valued at $200 million but is just a part of the broader $5 billion earmarked by Congress for comprehensive services to unaccompanied migrant children, which also encompasses their housing and shelter needs.
The Department of Health and Human Services has chosen not to comment on the ongoing litigation. This case marks the third instance in under a week where the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement has faced legal hindrances, albeit potentially short-lived, as related lawsuits progress. Recently, rulings from judges in Boston and San Francisco have temporarily safeguarded certain immigration protections and rights for affected individuals.