Updates to our Terms of Use

We are updating our Terms of Use. Please carefully review the updated Terms before proceeding to our website.

Wednesday, April 23, 2025

View Back issues

Judge bars feds from restricting Head Start benefits to US citizens

A federal judge agreed with a group of Head Start agencies that Health and Human Services likely violated the law by excluding immigrant families from the program without first seeking public comment and assessing the impact of the policy change.

(CN) — A federal judge on Thursday temporarily blocked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services from restricting benefits of the Head Start anti-poverty program to U.S. citizens until the legality of the new regulation is decided.

Senior U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez in Seattle agreed with a group of Head Start agencies that HHS likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act, which regulates how federal agencies operate, by making the July 14 directive immediately effective without a notice and comment period and by failing to consult affected agencies to assess its impact.

Martinez, a George W. Bush appointee, rejected HHS’s argument that the directive was only an interpretative rule and not a final agency action that would have required issuing a notice to solicit public comment before going into effect.

“The directive here creates legal obligations for Head Start agencies that did not exist for the last 30 years and alters the legal rights of parent plaintiff members by removing their access to Head Start programs altogether,” Martinez wrote in a 26-page order. “Based on the existing record, the directive carries direct consequences and is more akin to `a final and binding determination’ with direct consequences than ‘a tentative recommendation.’”

He also noted the irreparable harm the directive was already causing because low-income families have started to drop out of the program after directive, presumably because they are worried about the agencies verifying their immigration status.

“As plaintiffs enumerate, this chilling effect results in the immediate harm of childhood education loss, disability support, dual-language instruction, and stable learning environments, leading to long-term harms in development,” Martinez wrote. “It also results in parents losing childcare, risking missed work, unemployment, forced dropouts, and inability to pay life expenses and support families.”

A representative of HHS said the department disagrees with the court’s decision and is evaluating its next steps.

Teaming up with two parent associations, the Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin branches of Head Start first sued this past April, accusing the Trump administration of seeking dismantle the program established in 1965 to give families living in poverty comprehensive early learning, health, nutrition and family support services.

At that point they sought a preliminary injunction regarding HHS’s mass layoffs and office closure, and the dismantling of diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility initiatives.

In July, after HHS had issued the directive excluding immigrant families from Head Start benefits, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and sought an injunction against enforcement of that change of policy.

The Trump administration insists it upheld federal law under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, which it claimed 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,” U.S. Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik said at a hearing in July.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the agencies in the case, and the plaintiff agencies welcomed Thursday’s ruling that, they say, enjoins the government from implementing or enforcing it against any Head Start agencies, program providers, student or family participants, or other similar persons.

“Today the court was clear: HHS does not have the authority to impose an immigration-based restriction on Head Start families,” said Jennesa Calvo-Friedman, senior staff attorney in the Women’s Rights Project at the ACLU. “No child and no family should have to fear accessing critical early learning services, and we will continue to defend the families that Head Start aims to serve.”

Categories / Government, Immigration, National

Subscribe to our free newsletters

Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.

Loading...