Despite a federal judge’s order to resume funding for legal representation of unaccompanied immigrant children, the Trump administration has failed to comply, according to legal aid groups.
More than three weeks ago, San Francisco’s U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguin issued a temporary restraining order directing the government to restore the funding that was cut mid-March.
Watch NBC Bay Area News free wherever you are
WATCH HEREYet, legal aid organizations report that the money remains frozen while the White House appeals the ruling.
In court filings, the legal aid groups argue that in the absence of legal counsel, children, some as young as 5 years old, are being forced to face immigration judges alone.
A reenactment video created by filmmaker Linda Freedman and Immigration Counseling Services highlights the stark reality: children sitting alone in court, confused and unable to understand what is happening around them.
“Do you know what a lawyer is?” a voice asked a small child in the video. “No,” the child responded quietly.
Alvaro Huerta, Director of Litigation at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, said the situation has already resulted in the removal of children from the U.S.
“They had court appearances before a judge, and because there was no one to stand with them in court, they either took a voluntary departure or were ordered removed,” he explained.
Since the judge's ruling, the Trump administration has taken multiple legal steps to try to dismiss or appeal the judgement. Court filings reveal that government attorneys have filed motions to dissolve the restraining order and even to recuse the judge. The appeals and motions were either dismissed or denied.
Get a weekly recap of the latest San Francisco Bay Area housing news with the Housing Deconstructed newsletter.
SIGN UP The motion attempting to recuse the judge argued there is an appearance of bias toward the Plaintiffs because Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin previously worked as a managing attorney at Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, a plaintiff in the lawsuit.
The judge denied the recusal arguing that she worked there 7 years ago and that, “a jurist’s prior employment alone does not establish a circumstance in which their impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
In its filings, the administration argues that while Congress authorized the funds, it did not mandate that they be spent, claiming they have discretion in how they distribute the funds.
The Acacia Center for Justice, which previously held the federal contract, had coordinated with more than 100 local groups to provide legal services to roughly 26,000 children. Since the funding cutoff, many of those organizations say they have been forced to lay off staff, withdraw from cases, or shut down entirely.
The Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the program, insists it is still meeting legal obligations under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which requires that unaccompanied minors are provided legal representation--but they did not explain how they’re meeting those requirements.
The legal aid groups say the government is not providing funding for legal representation, only know your rights and legal screenings for children. “They’re not funding actual legal representation,” Huerta said. “What’s at stake is really the fundamental values of our country. When our government is more willing to pay for an attorney to deport a child than for one to protect that child in court, something’s fundamentally wrong.”
This week, the legal aid groups are requesting a preliminary injunction to force the government to comply with the restraining order and reinstate the funding.
