The Trump administration this month has complicated – if not cut off – access to lawyers for tens of thousands of immigrant kids. By law, the government must try to arrange that aid for children who come to the United States alone.
At the end of July, the government let a legal-services contract for those children lapse, affecting the Acacia Center for Justice and its nearly 100 subcontractors. News this week of an upcoming federal contract with a Texas firm better known for environmental law has left immigrant advocates scrambling for answers as court dates loom.
As a result, at least one nonprofit has laid off staff. Others count the days until their funding runs out.
Why We Wrote This
The Trump administration let a contract to provide legal services to tens of thousands of immigrant children lapse. The interruption potentially leaves more children without legal representation in a complex and accelerating immigration court system.
A federal judge in California last year ordered the Trump administration to keep funding those services. The government has since withheld funds for months and cast doubt on the legitimacy of lawyers’ work. As litigation chugs on, the White House has ramped up deportations of unaccompanied immigrant children and made it harder for them to win protections like asylum.
On Monday, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement that its agency overseeing unaccompanied children agrees that they need legal representation, “and is actively working to resolve this matter.”
By Thursday, Acacia had proposed a new contract that would help transition cases to new providers and was waiting to hear back.
“We adamantly believe that children must continue to be represented by attorneys who specialize in immigration law,” and are trained to handle trauma, says Bettina Rodriguez Schlegel, the chief of staff at Acacia.
Access to lawyers
U.S. law says the government must ensure unaccompanied children can access legal aid “to the greatest extent practicable.” Congress has never fully funded that goal, children’s advocates say.
The end of the Acacia contract on July 31 threw that access further into jeopardy. On Monday, the spokesperson for HHS, whose Office of Refugee Resettlement takes custody of children soon after they arrive alone, said in an email that the agency is “pursuing multiple acquisition options.”
Last week, a Texas nonprofit – an Acacia subcontractor – shut down its unaccompanied children’s program and let 13 employees go. “We’re still all a little bit in shock,” says Melissa Lopez, executive director of Estrella del Paso.
Like other groups cut off from funds, Estrella del Paso has patched together philanthropy and reserves in an attempt to stay afloat.
“We have now completely used up all of our savings,” Ms. Lopez says. Her team won’t accept new cases and will discontinue know-your-rights presentations along with legal screenings.
As of Monday, the nonprofit reported 243 active cases that lawyers are trying to manage.
“We are maintaining our responsibilities to them, both ethically and morally,” Ms. Lopez says.
A Federal Register notice shows HHS plans to award a Texas firm – the Burke Law Group – a yearlong contract for legal services for unaccompanied minors. For up to $150 million, the firm would provide those services “while children remain” in HHS care, and offer referrals when they are released.
It’s unclear whether the government will announce additional contracts to cover children who have been released to sponsors.
As of Thursday, two out of around two dozen people on the Houston firm’s website listed immigration expertise. Those include an attorney who has represented employers of foreign workers – and whose name appeared on the firm’s website this week after news broke about the new contract, according to archived versions of the site.
The Burke Law Group did not respond to voicemails and written requests seeking interviews. The founder, Marcella Burke, served in the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department during the first Trump administration.
Limits of law
In immigration court, people are entitled to an attorney, but not at the government’s expense.
In practice, “the government has never had enough money to provide representation for all children in their immigration proceedings,” says Mark Greenberg, a scholar in residence at the Brookings Institution and former HHS deputy general counsel during the Joe Biden presidency.
Acacia claims HHS owes it more than $65 million for months of services already completed. HHS withheld funding while requesting data on child clients that the organization refused to share.
Acacia says sharing clients’ immigration ID numbers, among other details, would violate standards of confidentiality. The Trump administration disagrees.
“As with any attorney billing, the government must know what it is funding,” especially when children appear in immigration hearings without counsel, the HHS spokesperson said in the emailed statement.
Since last November, Acacia says, more than 20,000 unaccompanied children received legal services. By comparison, since fiscal year 2021, HHS has released some half a million unaccompanied children, though not all have remained.
Before the contract ended last week, John Fabbricatore, a former Immigration and Customs Enforcement official and now an HHS adviser, linked allegations of potential fraud by Acacia to the prevalence of unaccompanied kids in court without lawyers.
Making sure federal funds are securing counsel for each child is “important for the American taxpayer, and for these children,” Mr. Fabbricatore told NewsNation.
“We have nothing to hide,” says Ms. Rodriguez Schlegel at Acacia.
“We did everything according to the way that we were asked,” she says, but later on, HHS “did an about-face and then demanded retroactive information for work already performed.” The nonprofit says the government’s underfunding explains why children still appear without lawyers in court.
Ethics also limit how many cases lawyers can take on, says Emily Brock, deputy managing attorney for the children’s program at the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, an Acacia subcontractor.
“It’s a preparation and capacity issue,” she says. “Especially as the government makes it harder and harder to pursue relief.”
With the funding lapse, Ms. Brock says her organization can’t take on new cases.
“The onus shouldn’t be on us to be fundraising to provide services that the federal government is statutorily required to provide,” she says.
Changes in court
Lawyers say the funding cliff comes as new policies in immigration court complicate and accelerate children’s cases.
In past administrations, says attorney Laura Lindsay, an immigration judge would let children prepare complex applications over six to nine months. Now, she says children often face deadlines of three to four weeks.
“Which is not enough time to develop an asylum case for a traumatized 7-year-old,” says Ms. Lindsay, a staff attorney at Ayuda, another Acacia subcontractor, in Virginia.
Sometimes, “I’m the first person they’ve disclosed horrific abuse to … and it’s taken months of screening before they feel comfortable sharing,” Ms. Lindsay says.
Kathryn Mattingly, a spokesperson for the Executive Office for Immigration Review, which runs immigration courts, said the agency “prioritizes the timely completion of all cases,” including for children.
Unnecessary delays hurt immigrants with valid claims and the American public, who wish to see those without valid claims deported “as quickly as possible,” Ms. Mattingly said in an email.
Though more than 3 million cases remain, the Trump administration has whittled down the immigration court backlog. Critics say policies that have fast-tracked cases have imperiled due process rights in the court, part of the executive branch. The government counters that it’s restoring integrity to the immigration system after a Biden-era surge of illegal entries.
Ms. Lindsay reports having 11 court hearings recently in the span of three days.
According to her nonprofit, private funding has allowed Ayuda to continue representing around 260 unaccompanied children through September.
The role of Congress
For some observers, the lapsed contract underscores a flawed system set up by lawmakers – one that places children in deportation proceedings in the first place.
Minors shouldn’t face adversarial hearings, says Andrew Arthur, a resident fellow in law and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies and former immigration judge. “Congress should revisit it,” he says.
Congress hasn’t overhauled the immigration system since the 1990s.
“As an immigration judge, I would not feel comfortable going forward” with an unrepresented child, Mr. Arthur says. “You can’t take pleadings from anybody that you conclude isn’t competent.”