On Monday, a federal judge mandated the U.S. Office of Refugee Resettlement to revisit the cases of several migrant children left in government detention due to altered identification standards for potential family sponsors established by the Trump administration.
The finding by U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, based in Washington, D.C., highlighted that these tightened regulations led to unnecessary delays for children and their prospective guardians, including parents and adult siblings, who were eager to provide shelter.
The White House has not yet provided any comment on the ruling.
According to Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, an advocacy organization representing some of the affected migrant children, the judgment represents an essential reminder that children cannot be indefinitely detained just because their families may not possess specific documents or legal status. The verdict is seen as an essential step towards reuniting these families and counteracting broader moves against protecting children’s legal rights.
Data from the Health and Human Services Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement indicate that under the Trump administration’s policies, migrant children remained in shelters on average for 217 days before joining family members. In contrast, these children have been spending an average of 35 days in shelters under the Biden administration before joining sponsors.
The Trump administration expressed concerns that adult sponsors often weren’t properly vetted, potentially putting children at risk of abuse or exploitation. The new regulations require DNA testing and income verification, also barring the use of foreign passports or other international documents as identity proof by sponsor applicants.
Judge Friedrich acknowledged there is a legitimate purpose behind these rule alterations—an ORR report in 2023 documented multiple fraud instances, including ten cases where children were handed over to sponsors with counterfeit documents.
Despite this, the judge noted there was no prior notification regarding the rule changes, and many children entered the U.S. with the expectation that they had suitable family members ready to sponsor them. Awareness of these changes might have deterred them from entering the country, Friedrich pointed out.
One case involved a child who had lived with his sister under previous requirements but was taken back into custody after a minor legal infraction. He now remains in government detention without a sponsor, trapped by the updated regulations.
Judge Friedrich suggested that the Office of Refugee Resettlement may have acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” by implementing new sponsor documentation standards without providing proper justification. While the agency is not required to approve every sponsor or release any specific child, it cannot enforce broad new regulations without adequately assessing and balancing the families’ and children’s interests with other legitimate concerns.
Home US court: Review ordered for certain children's refugee cases