Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. United States Department of Health and Human Services
3:25-cv-02847
N.D. Cal.May 14, 2025Background
- The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to ensure, to the greatest extent practicable, that unaccompanied children in immigration proceedings have access to legal counsel.
- The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) established a rule requiring federal funding for direct legal representation for certain unaccompanied children, depending on its discretion and appropriations.
- Congress has consistently appropriated funds since 2012 for this purpose, most recently as of March 2025.
- Plaintiffs challenged the Government's move to withdraw funding for legal counsel for these children, and the district court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the withdrawal.
- The Government appealed and sought a stay of the injunction pending appeal, arguing both jurisdictional and discretionary grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under APA given the Tucker Act | APA claims are based on statutory/regulatory violations, not contract; no contract exists between plaintiffs and Government. | Tucker Act impliedly forbids suit claiming breach of funding obligation; only Federal Claims Court has jurisdiction. | Court finds jurisdiction proper; APA claim is statutory, not contractual, so Tucker Act does not bar review. |
| APA Reviewability/Agency Discretion | The TVPRA imposes a mandatory (not merely discretionary) duty to provide legal counsel; agency action is reviewable under APA. | Decision to fund or not fund legal counsel is committed to agency discretion by law and not reviewable under the APA. | Court holds that this is not purely discretionary; statute imposes mandatory duty, therefore reviewable under the APA. |
| Irreparable Injury for Stay | Plaintiffs argue no irreparable harm will occur to the Government from compliance with the injunction. | Government claims disbursing funds is irreparable because money may not be recovered, plus separation of powers harm. | Court finds no showing of irreparable injury; dispersal of appropriated funds as required by law does not constitute irreparable harm; motion for stay denied. |
| Application of Precedent (Lincoln v. Vigil) | Lincoln is inapposite because that case addressed discretionary programs; this is a mandatory program required by statute. | Government argues Lincoln controls, making the agency's funding decisions unreviewable. | Court distinguishes Lincoln; the statutory duty here is mandatory, so Lincoln’s nonreviewability doctrine does not apply. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136 (presumption of judicial review of agency action under APA)
- Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (certain agency decisions are presumptively unreviewable as committed to agency discretion)
- Lincoln v. Vigil, 508 U.S. 182 (agency funding allocation from lump-sum appropriation is usually committed to agency discretion, but not where a program is mandated by statute)
- Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (standard for granting a stay pending appeal)
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (reviewability of agency discretion under the APA)
- Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146 ("shall" in a statute indicates a mandatory duty)