Democratic AGs sue to bar immigration requirements for Head Start and other federal programs
The attorneys general from states, including New York, California and Illinois, filed the lawsuit in federal court in Providence, Rhode Island, asking the court to block policies announced by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Justice and several other agencies outlined in memos released earlier this month.
They argue the policies, which implement an immigration-focused executive order from Republican President Donald Trump are unconstitutional and were issued without following the required federal rulemaking process.
The directives require programs to check participants' immigration status before providing services, or risk losing critical federal funding, the lawsuit said.
The requirements went into effect almost immediately after the directives were issued, leaving the programs scrambling to find ways to comply so they can stay open, it said. Immigrants in the country illegally have generally been ineligible for most federal benefits, but until the memos were issued, some programs providing healthcare, food and early childcare education were not treated as restricted federal benefits.
Additionally, the policy also applies to some people who are in the country legally, like those with student visas, and could harm U.S. citizens without government identification, they said.
New York Attorney General Letitia James said her state's Head Start program receives approximately $700 million in federal funding to provide early childhood education to nearly 43,000 children. Many providers in the program have said they may not have the capacity to screen participants' immigration status, putting the funding at risk.
'This is a baseless attack on some of our country's most effective and inclusive public programs, and we will not let it stand,' New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement.
The DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment. A spokesperson for HHS said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
In a statement earlier this month, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr said his agency was making the change to disincentivize illegal immigration.
The lawsuit asks the court to halt the policy and vacate it.
The agencies announced the policy beginning on July 10, saying it was part of their effort to follow a February Trump executive order. The executive order, 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,' said a 1996 federal law governing federal benefits prevented their use by people in the country illegally.
The attorneys general said the Trump administration has misinterpreted the law, applying it to entire programs rather than to individual benefits. The policy also violates the U.S. Constitution's Spending Clause, which requires the federal government to provide fair notice of any conditions on federal funding before states accept it, the group said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Finextra
9 minutes ago
- Finextra
Barclays follows HSBC out of the Net Zero Banking Alliance
Barclays has followed HSBC in withdrawing from the Net Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA), claiming that the departure of a host of other global lenders means the organisation "no longer has the membership to support our transition". 1 Founded in 2021, the UN-convened NZBA requires members to commit to "transition the operational and attributable greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their lending and investment portfolios to align with pathways to net-zero by 2050 or sooner". At its peak it had around 150 members, including most of the world's largest banks. However, that number has dwindled in the last few months. At the beginning of 2025, ahead of Donald Trump's return to the White House, a host of US banks, including JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citi, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo, pulled out of the global climate-focused alliance. The American banks quit amid attacks from Republicans on "woke" capitalism, with the House Judiciary Committee, led by Republican Jim Jordan, claiming that financial environmental alliances have created "a climate cartel". Now, UK-headquartered HSBC and Barclays have joined their US counterparts. Barclays says it is committed to its "ambition" to be a net zero bank by 2050. Says a statement: "Our targets to mobilise $1 trillion of Sustainable and Transition Financing and for financed emissions remain unchanged. We continue to work with our clients on their transition, finance the transition and scale climate tech, while helping to ensure energy security for our customers and clients." Earlier this week, the CEO of Standard Chartered, Bill Winters, hit out at banks that have rowed back on their climate commitments. 'People that said a lot of stuff, but [when] it was fashionable to say it, [and] who are saying either nothing or the opposite now: shame on them,' said Winters, according to the Guardian.
The Independent
10 minutes ago
- The Independent
Corporation behind funds for PBS and NPR says it's ending operations after Trump cuts
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting says it will wind down its operations after the Trump administration and Congress slashed its funding. The organization funds PBS and NPR, as well as more than 1,500 local TV and radio stations. 'Despite the extraordinary efforts of millions of Americans who called, wrote, and petitioned Congress to preserve federal funding for CPB, we now face the difficult reality of closing our operations,' Corporation for Public Broadcasting President and CEO Patricia Harrison said in a statement.
Reuters
10 minutes ago
- Reuters
Court upholds Biden-era EPA rule phasing out climate-damaging refrigerant
Aug 1 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected challenges by refrigerant manufacturers to a rule adopted during Democratic President Joe Biden's administration to curtail the use of a potent climate-warming gas used in refrigerators and air conditioners. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected, opens new tab arguments that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule governing hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) was invalid and that the agency unconstitutionally exercised legislative power by adopting it. Zhonette Brown, a lawyer for Georgia-based Choice Refrigerants at the conservative New Civil Liberties Alliance, said her client was evaluating next steps, saying the court's ruling was not consistent with the text and history of the statute at issue. A lawyer for the other company that challenged the rule, Florida-based IGas, which is partly owned by China-based Zhejiang Juhua ( opens new tab, did not respond to a request for comment. The EPA said it is reviewing the ruling. The agency in February sought unsuccessfully to have the case put on hold, citing the need for new agency leadership under Republican President Donald Trump to review the regulation. The rule was finalized in July 2023 in order to implement a provision of the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, a 2020 law that calls for reducing the production and consumption of climate-damaging HFCs by 85% by 2036. To implement the law, the EPA began setting annual 'allocations' for each HFC producer and importer based on estimates of their historical market share that gradually would decline over time. Lawyers for Choice Refrigerants argued that Congress had unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the EPA to set the allowances. But U.S. Circuit Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, wrote that the AIM Act does not unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the EPA because it sufficiently constrained the agency's discretion to allocate HFC allowances. "Congress provided ample direction to guide the EPA's exercise of discretion: The Act's text, structure, and history demonstrate that Congress intended for the EPA to model its cap-and-trade program on similar programs established under the Clean Air Act, and those programs allocated allowances to market participants according to their market share," Pan wrote. The 2023 rule built on an earlier one finalized in 2021 that implemented a 10% phase-down for 2022 and 2023 and called for a further 40% reduction in the use of HFCs from 2024 to 2028. For both rules, the EPA calculated market share based on an average of a company's three highest years of HFC import data from 2011 and 2019. It opted in 2023 against including 2020 and 2021 data, saying that data might have been overly impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruptions, and stockpiling of HFCs by companies anticipating the regulatory phasedown. Lawyers for IGas had argued that excluding the 2020 data was arbitrary and capricious, requiring the rule to be deemed unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. But the three-judge panel said the EPA reasonably concluded that the 2020 data was unrepresentative of market share and that its inclusion would disrupt the market. The case is IGas Holdings, Inc., et al v. EPA, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 23-1261. For IGas: JoAnn Sandifer of Husch Blackwell For Choice Refrigerants: Zhonette Brown of New Civil Liberties Alliance For the EPA: Sarah Buckley of the U.S. Department of Justice For Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute: Elizabeth Dawson of Crowell & Moring Read more: Court skeptical of challenge to EPA phase out of climate-damaging refrigerant
