
Lawsuit challenges restrictions on Head Start for kids in the US illegally
Individual public benefits, such as food stamps and college financial aid, have been largely unavailable to people in the country without legal status, but the new rules and guidance from the administration curbed their access to community-level programs that receive federal money.
The lawsuit led by New York Attorney General Letitia James argues the government failed to follow the rulemaking process and did not provide required notice on conditions placed on federal funds. It also argues the changes will create significant harm.
'These programs work because they are open, accessible, and grounded in compassion,' James said in a statement. 'This is a baseless attack on some of our country's most effective and inclusive public programs, and we will not let it stand.'
The rule changes rescinded a Clinton-era interpretation of federal laws on immigrants ' access to services. The restrictions were announced jointly earlier this month by the Department of Health and Human Services, the Education Department, the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice.
Implementing immigration documentation checks would place a significant burden on programs and in some cases would be unrealistic, the lawsuit said. The extra work would likely affect services provided by these programs to U.S. citizens, who are often from low-income backgrounds and depend on the services for health and education, the lawsuit said.
Head Start, a federal preschool program that provides developmental therapy, child care and preschool to families who are homeless or in poverty, has not asked participants to verify their immigration status in the past.
Some Head Start providers said they do not have the staff or resources to begin implementing such screening.
'It is likely that for some programs, the costs of compliance will be so high as to lead to the programs' closure,' the lawsuit said. 'Many Head Start programs are small entities that operate on razor-thin margins and are likely to close if facing a significant administrative burden.'
Other community-level programs affected by the rule change include mental health services in schools, crisis hotlines and substance use disorder treatment.
___
The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
2 hours ago
- The Independent
Massive spike in threats against Obama after Trump team claims he committed ‘treason'
Threats made online against former president Barack Obama spiked over the weekend after Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard accused him of a years-long coup attempt against President Donald Trump. Gabbard has claimed Obama and his top officials ran a 'treasonous conspiracy' by insinuating they manufactured an investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election to undermine Trump's first election. Hours after she made the claim, on July 18, violent rhetoric about Obama surged on platforms such as Truth Social, Telegram, and Gab, with some calling for his arrest, imprisonment, and execution. That rhetoric was intensified after the president posted an artificial intelligence-generated video of Obama being arrested and continued to re-post Gabbard's claims throughout the weekend. By July 19, threatening comments targeting Obama rose from three to 56 – a more than 1,700 percent increase, according to the Global Project Against Hate and Extremism. Truth Social users posted rhetoric calling for a 'firing squad,' a 'public hanging,' and 'streaming' his execution live – all while decrying Obama for the alleged treason. One user called for Obama's execution by using memes of a guillotine, electric shock chair, and public hanging platform. For years, Trump has blamed Obama and other Democrats for abusing power to facilitate investigations or indictments into himself. Since taking back the White House, Trump has promised to conduct a campaign of retribution against those he believes have targeted him. The documents Gabbard referred to as evidence of Obama's meddling show that the Obama administration wanted a review of the allegations against Russia before leaving office and pressured intelligence agencies to work quickly. spokesperson for Obama denied Gabbard's allegations, calling them 'bizarre,' 'ridiculous,' and 'a weak attempt at distraction. The Independent has asked the White House for comment. The Global Project Against Hate and Extremism said similar violent rhetoric increased on Gab, a platform known for platforming right-wing extremists. Between July 17 and July 20, comments targeted Obama as treasonous and deserving punishment rose from nine to 48, a more than 400 percent increase. A review of targeted comments made on Telegram in the same timeline revealed that threats against Obama rose from zero to 12. A White House spokesperson told Newsweek that, "President Trump and the entire administration strongly condemn all forms of violence. The Trump administration also believes in accountability and that individuals who participate in criminal activity should be held to the fullest extent of the law.


Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain can dodge climate lawsuits if it pays UN, Vanuatu lawyer says
Britain can dodge climate lawsuits from other countries if it makes 'significant and meaningful' contributions reflecting its historical responsibility for global warming to a UN fund, Vanuatu's lawyer has said. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) opened the door for countries to sue each other for contributing to climate change, including past emissions, in a landmark legal opinion on Wednesday. The case was brought by a coalition of nations suffering from rising sea levels and extreme weather, but which have barely contributed to global pollution. Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, associate professor of sustainability law at the University of Amsterdam, is legal counsel in the case for Vanuatu, the world's most climate-vulnerable island. 'The opinion provides a legal basis for such a lawsuit should any state choose to pursue that? Whether or not that is chosen is of course another question,' she told the Telegraph the day after her courtroom victory. 'Litigation is not really in anyone's interest, certainly also not in the interest of states that are seeking reparations for climate harms,' she added in an exclusive interview. In 2022, world governments agreed to set up the UN Loss and Damage fund to compensate states that are disproportionately harmed by climate change. It is still at an early stage of implementation. It has initial capital of about £517m but the fund is expected to need trillions to cover loss and damage, and many governments have not yet committed funds to it. In 2023, the UK pledged up to £40m as an early contribution. Professor Wewerinke-Singh said Britain was involved in talks over the fund and needed to put more money into it. 'If that happens, and the contributions of the UK are significant and meaningful, and show that the UK is mindful of its historical responsibility, then I think climate vulnerable states will not rush to sue the UK,' she said. Climate vulnerable states were aware they were harmed by a problem they did not cause, and it was not fair for them to be forced to depend on charity, Professor Wewerinke-Singh said. In 2015, Vanuatu lost 64 per cent of its GDP when it was hit by a typhoon in an extreme weather event. 'Vanuatu and all the climate-vulnerable states are finding themselves in a state of continuing crisis,' she said. 'There needs to be a shifting of the burden from the victims to the polluters. This opinion makes it clear that those who are harmed indeed have rights to claim reparations.' The ICJ opinion has said it is up to states to decide how to assign blame for climate change. If they failed to do so, the courts could, she said. Professor Wewerinke-Singh said liability could be worked out by looking at each country's overall contribution to emissions that can be quantified. 'Basically the proportion of contribution can then be matched with the proportion that states should pay for damages,' she said. Though the UK contributed close to 100 per cent of all global CO2 emissions in the 1700s, this share has rapidly declined over time, according to data from the Global Carbon Budget. At 4.4 per cent it now sits behind the United States (23.8 per cent), the European Union (16.5 per cent), and China (15.0 per cent). A lawsuit could be launched by a single nation or a large coalition of them.132 nations supported the ICJ case. Senior Conservatives and Reform UK politicians have urged the Government to ignore the opinion amid fears Labour will follow it, as Britain implemented an ICJ advisory opinion when it gave the Chagos Islands to Mauritius last year. The advisory opinion issued on Wednesday in The Hague is a way of clarifying specific questions of international law, and is not legally binding. It does carry moral authority and will be influential on the future of environmental litigation. Vanuatu's lawyer said it was a 'mistake to treat the opinion as non-binding' because the law that the court had clarified with the opinion was binding. She said, 'If states don't do what the court says needs to be done, then they breach their obligations, their hard law obligations. So it really is a shift.' Even if a state walked out of the UN Paris Agreement, like the US is doing, it could not walk out of those obligations, she said. Professor Wewerinke-Singh was asked if she feared that historical climate reparations could be caught up in the same culture wars as demands for reparations for slavery. She admitted it was a risk but added, 'when we talk about reparations, it may sound very polarising, but it doesn't need to be. 'It can be a very collaborative process. It doesn't need to be contentious. It doesn't need to be about court battles. It can be done in a very civilised, mature way.' She said the world needed to discuss how to settle the issue 'in a way that benefits us all, that keeps us all safe, that ends the climate crisis, but also redesigns societies in ways that are sustainable and so everybody can have a dignified life'. After the decision Ralph Regenvanu, its minister of climate change adaptation, said Vanuatu would take the ICJ ruling to the UN General Assembly and 'pursue a resolution that will support implementation of this decision'. Legal analysis of the opinion for its government said, 'For Vanuatu, the opinion is both shield and sword: a shield affirming its right to survival and a sword compelling the world's major emitters to act in line with science and justice.'


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Trump fires back at reports he's trying to destroy Musk's companies
President Donald Trump shot back at reports that he will try to destroy the companies of former best friend Elon Musk, clarifying his intent when it comes to the world's richest man. Trump had previously threatened to take away the billions in government contracts that Musk's various companies hold. The duo had a very public fallout over Trump's one big beautiful bill, which resulted in each man making threats against the other But the president now says he wants Musk to 'thrive.' 'Everyone is stating that I will destroy Elon's companies by taking away some, if not all, of the large scale subsidies he receives from the U.S. Government. This is not so!,' the president wrote on Truth Social. 'I want Elon, and all businesses within our Country, to THRIVE, in fact, THRIVE like never before! The better they do, the better the USA does, and that's good for all of us,' Trump wrote. The clarification came after White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked in her briefing on Wednesday if Trump supports federal agencies contracting with Musk's artificial intelligence company, xAI. 'I don't think so, no,' she replied and then added she would speak to the president about the matter. xAI won a contract for up to $200 million with the Department of Defense, alongside Anthropic, Google and OpenAI, last week. Additionally, this week, xAI unveiled a suite of products for U.S. government customers, which it refers to as Grok for Government. Trump and Musk have had a hot and cold relationship since the Tesla founder left government service in May. After his departure, Musk publicly turned on Trump's signature bill, complaining it would increase the country's debt and undo much of the savings his Department of Government Efficiency had sought. Trump was furious at Musk's public criticism and, at one point, responded: 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' 'We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,' Trump added. Musk, for his part, threatened to start a third political party to go after Republican candidates and posted on his X account that the reason the Jeffrey Epstein files hadn't been released because Trump is in them. He later took that post down.