President Donald Trump attends the 157th National Memorial Day Observance at Arlington National Cemetery, Monday, May 26, 2025, in Arlington, Va. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin).
The Trump administration secured a victory in a case challenging a recent policy of re-detaining immigrant children who were previously released into the custody of vetted sponsors and family members.
On Thursday, immigrant advocacy groups were denied a preliminary injunction that would have barred the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) from moving forward with what the underlying lawsuit terms its “blanket reapplication policy.” The plaintiffs further allege this policy was put into practice in conjunction with immigration enforcement efforts of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), though ORR is a subagency of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
“[P]rior to 2025, it was uncommon for a child to re-enter ORR custody after being released to a vetted and approved sponsor,” the original petition reads. “However, with the increase in internal apprehensions of noncitizens in the United States, upon information and belief, hundreds of children have been re-arrested by DHS and re-referred to ORR custody.”
The plaintiffs allege the policy is “a quieter, new form of family separation” in which “children often languish for months.”
To hear the advocates tell it, ORR requiring people to restart their sponsor application process is lengthy and oftentimes cannot be completed due to identification requirements in certain states “where driver”s licenses are not available without proof of legal status.”
The government, oppositely, argued there is no such “policy” that distinguishes how ORR treats children who are re-referred to the agency compared to children entering its custody for the first time.
“[W]hile Plaintiffs may be frustrated with their return to ORR custody by DHS, that does not establish the alleged ORR policy, and HHS does not control DHS,” an opposition motion reads. “Even the re-referral circumstances among the named Plaintiffs differ and are not typical.”
Now, in a 25-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, who was appointed by President Donald Trump, determined the government’s policy is not as egregious as the plaintiffs suggest.
“The decision to require previously approved sponsors to resubmit new applications may err on the side of ‘providing safe and secure placements’ at the expense of ‘prompt[ness],’ but the Court cannot say at this stage that ORR’s decision is likely so unreasonable that it constitutes arbitrary agency action,” the opinion reads.
The plaintiffs insist the government’s actions amount to “a hidden new form of family separation” and are causing myriad harms to children in ORR custody due to the time spent away from school and family.
The government, in turn, argues that ORR is merely working to “balance its obligation to protect” unaccompanied immigrant children “from human trafficking and exploitation, with promptly reunifying” such children “where possible, with their parents or other suitable sponsor.”
And, for now, at least, the court sided with the government.
“ORR appears to be faithfully following its obligations here,” the opinion goes on. “Requiring updated application materials is consistent both with its statutory and regulatory obligations and with the Government’s interest in protecting the safety of these children, especially where a significant amount of time has elapsed between a sponsor’s initial approval and an unaccompanied child’s re-arrest.”
Nichols says the named plaintiffs themselves demonstrate the paucity of their own arguments because they were “readmitted to ORR custody roughly two years after they were initially released to an approved sponsor.”
“Given that ORR is statutorily obligated to make ‘an independent finding that [a potential sponsor] has not engaged in any activity that would indicate a potential risk to the child,’ ORR surely has an interest in ensuring that even former sponsors have not engaged in potentially risky behavior in the years since their sponsorship applications were approved,” the judge muses.
In other words, the court says long stretches of time between a child’s initial release and re-arrest into ORR custody actually support the notion their would-be sponsors should be vetted again.
As for the due process issues, the judge waives those away.
“Plaintiffs’ concern is that the Government is engaged in too much process, and thus that the re-vetting process is taking too long,” the opinion continues. “Although Plaintiffs are correct that nothing explicitly requires the Government to conduct a second review of potential sponsors, nothing in the statute or Rule forbids it either.”
Rather, the court notes, the plaintiffs are in fact being seen and heard within a “meaningful” amount of time and manner.
“While Plaintiffs’ detentions last longer than they believe is warranted, their concerns are not going unheard; the record reflects that ORR is processing their sponsors’ applications now, and in some cases has already granted them,” the opinion reads.
The court summarizes the new policy in a favorable light:
[B]y requiring each sponsor to submit up-to-date information, ORR is attempting to ensure that transferring custody to those sponsors now, in some cases years after the initial determination of suitability, would serve “the best interest of the child” in the present. Put differently, ORR is attempting to “determin[e] that the proposed custodian is capable of providing for the child’s physical and mental well-being,” by assessing “the nature and extent of the potential sponsor’s previous and current relationship with the unaccompanied child.”
“Plaintiffs are not entitled to a preliminary injunction at this stage of the litigation and based on the present record,” the opinion concludes.
