More than 50 legal organizations launch coordinated effort to challenge indefinite detention of unaccompanied migrant children
Attorneys are filing habeas corpus petitions to force the Trump administration to justify why approximately 1,900 children remain in federal custody despite having family sponsors waiting to receive them.
What happened
More than 50 legal organizations, law firms, and offices have mobilized the Children's Due Process Project to challenge the detention of unaccompanied migrant children in U.S. immigration custody. As of end-of-August, approximately 1,900 unaccompanied children were under federal control, with an average stay of 183 days in shelters or long-term foster care, according to government data. Attorneys are deploying habeas corpus petitions on a case-by-case basis to argue in federal courts that the children are being detained unlawfully. The effort is being managed by organizations including the National Center for Youth Law, the Acacia Center for Justice, The Door, and the Immigration and Human Rights Clinic at Loyola University Chicago School of Law. As of end-of-July, at least 65 children with ongoing immigration court proceedings had been held for over a year.
Context
U.S. law requires unaccompanied immigrant children to be placed promptly in the least restrictive setting in their best interest, typically with family members already in the U.S. The Trump administration has implemented new restrictions that make it harder for children to be released to sponsors, including tightened vetting measures, undoing privacy protections for undocumented sponsors, and allowing collaboration between the Office of Refugee Resettlement and immigration enforcement agencies. The administration has also defunded existing attorneys for these children and scheduled accelerated immigration hearings for their removal. Advocates describe this as a crisis of indefinite detention with potential psychological harm, while the government argues its vetting standards are necessary and that it releases children as quickly or faster than the U.S. foster care system. What is at stake is whether children can be reunited with waiting family members before their immigration cases proceed to deportation.
What's disputed
The government states that heightened vetting measures are necessary because criminal smuggling organizations play a role in every unaccompanied child case and that ORR releases children quickly. Advocates counter that these restrictions effectively prevent release and that such measures constitute unnecessary cruelty, arguing the smuggling networks have little bearing on children's safety once they arrive in the U.S.