蜜桃影视

Undocumented children will be permitted to remain in Head Start programs throughout the country while a case challenging an order by the Trump administration barring them makes its way through the courts, Thursday.

The decision came just a day after another U.S. district court judge in Rhode Island granted a that offered similar protections to preschoolers That ruling also means undocumented residents can still access adult and career and technical education and won’t be cut off from a range of federally funded emergency services, including for domestic violence and homelessness.

Linda Morris, an ACLU attorney representing the plaintiffs in the Washington state case, said she was elated by the decision, noting its sweeping scope. 

鈥淭his is an incredible victory, especially for Head Start providers and Head Start children and families,鈥� she said. 鈥淭oday’s ruling makes clear that every child, no matter their immigration status, deserves access to early educational support. We are extremely pleased with the court鈥檚 decision.鈥� 

In issuing the national injunction, U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Martinez strongly rebuked the Health and Human Services Department, which oversees Head Start and funds 80% of its costs, for changing a longstanding legal interpretation and classifying it for the first time as a federal public benefit. 

Undocumented immigrants are not eligible for these supports, including food assistance and non-emergency Medicaid. The move to restrict Head Start access is part of a wider Trump administration effort to exclude the undocumented from all taxpayer-funded services and programs, including several that involve education and job training.

The ruling restores Head Start eligibility to children and families who have student visas and other temporary statuses and were also excluded by HHS鈥檚 . The move affected the eligibility of more than 500,000 kids, according to the agency鈥檚 own analysis, and impacted approximately 115,000 children currently enrolled in the program.

Andrew Nixon, the HHS communications director, said Friday his office disagrees with the injunctions and is evaluating next steps. 

Head Start associations from four states and two parent and caregiver groups sued the agency and Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the Washington case. 

Joel Ryan is executive director of one of , the.

鈥淚 feel relief. I feel like people can breathe a little bit more,鈥� said Ryan, whose organization’s other legal claims against the administration are focused on confusion over its anti-diversity, equity and inclusion mandates and the mass firings of Head Start staff.

Martinez rejected the Trump administration鈥檚 assertion that Head Start is a welfare program because it provides other means of support, including meals. Public schools do the same and no one would argue they are not educational in nature, he wrote. 

鈥淧roviding services such as health care, nutrition and other social services does not make Head Start non-educational but, as the Head Start Act states, 鈥榩romotes the school readiness of low-income children by enhancing their cognitive, social and emotional development,鈥欌�� he wrote, noting, too, that Head Start funds do not provide payments of benefits to individual households or families. 

In court Tuesday, U.S. Department of Justice attorney Micheal Velchik tried to parse the degree of learning and instruction that takes place in Head Start from what鈥檚 taught at the K-12 level.聽

“It’s technically not school or education because it’s preschool. It’s what you do before school and so it’s not really education in that sense,” said Velchik, who mistakenly referred to the program as Head First several times.

Jannesa Calvo-Friedman, the plaintiffs鈥� attorney, said undocumented parents, families of mixed immigration status and others with full legal standing but who lack documentation told Head Start operators they were keeping their kids away out of fear or confusion.

鈥淭he children who are losing education at this time [in their lives] can never get it back,鈥� Calvo-Friedman said, citing studies on the critical nature of early learning. 鈥淯nless the directive is stayed or enjoined, defendants will continue to communicate the message that immigrant families need not apply.鈥�

Martinez agreed that allowing the directive to go into effect while the underlying case was being argued would impose imminent and irreparable harm.

鈥淲hile actual loss of funding from under enrollment might be down the road, families losing access to Head Start due to the Directive鈥檚 unclear guidance and chilling effects appears anything but speculative and exists even prior to enforcement,鈥� he notes.  

The judge expressed disbelief at the government’s contention that implementing the restriction immediately would discourage illegal immigration.

鈥淭he Court is floored by this argument,鈥� he wrote. 鈥淣othing on the record provides any means for this Court to infer that access to Head Start 鈥榠ncentivizes鈥� illegal immigration.鈥�

Head Start was established in 1965 to help improve kindergarten readiness for low-income children and to support their families. It has served young learners  and their families in the 60 years since. 

Did you use this article in your work?

We鈥檇 love to hear how 蜜桃影视鈥檚 reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers.