Education for all: Head Start rips feds for scaring away noncitizens

SEATTLE (CN) — In the latest battle between Head Start and the federal government, the child development program argued that a Trump administration directive slashed its services to prevent non-U.S. citizens from accessing them.

Teaming up with two parent associations, the Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin branches of Head Start sought a preliminary injunction to block the directive in May, accusing Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the Department of Health and Human Services and others of unlawfully freezing federal funding to align with President Donald Trump’s crusade against “diversity, equity, inclusion, and/or accessibility."

In doing so, Head Start claims the government destabilized programs meant to give families living in poverty comprehensive early learning, health, nutrition and family support services. American Civil Liberties Union Foundation attorney Jennesa Calvo-Friedman argued that by posting the anti-DEIA directive at all Head Start institutions, the government is instilling fear in families of mixed citizenship status to prevent their enrollment.

“That is the point of posting the sign,” Calvo-Friedman said in a nearly full courtroom. “Even without a security guard outside to enforce the exclusion, even if the sign doesn’t list the consequences, it will not only keep out unqualified immigrants, but also those that don’t know they qualify, those that do qualify but don’t have citizenship and those that don’t have the documentation on hand to prove citizenship.”

The Trump administration insists that it upheld federal law with the directive under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which it says in a supplemental briefing entitles only U.S. citizens and qualified noncitizens to federal public benefits.

“The agency went out of its way to identify what it thought was an appropriate interpretation under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,” said Michael Velchik from the Department of Justice.

Furthermore, the government says that Head Start and its fellow plaintiffs’ injuries are largely speculative because they don’t use reliable data to support the predicted 30% drop in enrollment and loss in funding, layoffs and program closures.

“We think that these particular plaintiffs, who have not suffered an enforcement action, would not lose funding for potentially years,” said Velchik.

Calvo-Friedman countered that the directive changed the rights of Head Start participants and agencies, and since the government did not say that regulated parties can ignore the directive, the threat alone can cause irreparable harm.

“The language of the directive commands, requires and dictates,” said Calvo-Friedman. “The government is saying that immigrant families need not apply.”

To highlight what she saw as the government’s arbitrary decisionmaking, Calvo-Friedman noted that HHS recently updated its policy to make gender-inclusive conduct prohibited by Oct. 1, making it unclear what processes Head Start members can access.

Once the attorneys finished, U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez promised to make a ruling while a Rhode Island judge did the same for a related case.

“Time is of the essence,” said Martinez, a George W. Bush appointee. “But I understand why my colleague in Rhode Island is taking time with their decision as well.”

Outside the courthouse, Ming-Qi Chu of the ACLU said that the directive is another governmental attack against immigrant communities.

“The program was designed in part to serve immigrant communities, and now the Trump administration is defying that congressional mandate,” said Chu, who represents Head Start and the parent associations. “We’ve heard stories of ICE raiding the parking lots of Head Start agencies, so I think this is another front on the assault on immigrant communities.”

Follow @kndrleon