Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
3:25-cv-02847
N.D. Cal.Apr 29, 2025Background
- Plaintiff nonprofit legal organizations provide direct immigration representation to unaccompanied children in removal proceedings.
- Congress, via the Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), tasked the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) with ensuring unaccompanied children have access to legal counsel.
- Since 2012, Congress repeatedly appropriated funds specifically for these legal services, with funding available through at least September 2027.
- In March 2025, ORR and relevant agencies terminated contracts and paused all payments for direct legal representation, citing payment integrity but without a clear policy rationale or consideration of alternative means to ensure counsel for affected children.
- Plaintiffs alleged this termination forced them to lay off staff and left thousands of unaccompanied children unrepresented, and sought a preliminary injunction under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for violation of the TVPRA, the Foundational Rule, and arbitrary and capricious agency action.
- After earlier temporary restraining orders, the court heard motions regarding standing, jurisdiction, and the merits, and granted a nationwide preliminary injunction restoring funding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing | Organizations' missions are frustrated, forced to divert resources, and injury is redressable. | Plaintiffs lack standing, and are not within zone of interests. | Plaintiffs have organizational standing and fit the zone. |
| Jurisdiction (Tucker Act) | Claims are statutory/APA-based, not contract-based; relief is injunctive, not damages. | Claims sound in contract and must go to Court of Federal Claims. | Court retains jurisdiction; claims not contractual. |
| Lawfulness under TVPRA/Foundational Rule | Termination conflicts with statutory/regulatory duty to ensure representation where funds are available. | Agencies have discretion; TVPRA is not a funding mandate. | TVPRA and Rule require action when funds exist; agencies erred. |
| Arbitrary and Capricious Action under APA | No rationale or consideration for the change; agencies violated reasoned decisionmaking. | Agencies realigned priorities for sustainability and fiscal needs. | Agencies acted arbitrarily, lacking a stated rationale. |
| Preliminary Injunction Factors (likelihood of harm, etc.) | Plaintiffs face imminent, irreparable harm; equities/public interest favor injunction. | Public interest harmed by judicial interference in executive discretion. | All factors favor injunction for Plaintiffs, including bond waiver and nationwide scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (establishes elements for Article III standing)
- Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (1982) (organizational standing recognized when mission frustrated and resources diverted)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (APA jurisdiction proper for non-damages equitable relief)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard under APA)
- Webster v. Doe, 486 U.S. 592 (1988) (limits on when agency action is unreviewable under APA)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions)