Some Head Start programs could be forced to close because of the steep cost of complying with a new Trump administration policy that requires them to verify the immigration status of students and parents, 21 Democratic attorneys general argue in a new lawsuit.
The top legal officials in 20 states and the District of Columbia on Monday asked a judge to halt the new policy, which reclassified more than a dozen federally funded services, including Head Start and dual enrollment for high school students, as benefits similar to welfare so the Trump administration can bar undocumented immigrants from accessing them.
The reclassification touches a variety of services for low-income residents. Aside from Head Start and dual enrollment, federally funded programs for family planning, substance use treatment, mental health services, homelessness transition support, and others are affected. States and others administering the programs have never before been required to verify recipients’ immigration status.
In their lawsuit, filed Monday in federal court in Rhode Island, the attorneys general argue that the sudden policy move, announced July 10, has already created “chaos.” For program operators, it poses an “impossible choice between shutting their doors or risking an immediate cutoff in federal funding.”
The state legal officers argue the policy change is illegal and that the Trump administration didn’t follow proper procedure in making such a sweeping change, which took effect immediately for many of the affected programs.
“These programs work because they are open, accessible, and grounded in compassion,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who is leading the lawsuit, said in a statement. “Now, the federal government is pulling that foundation out from under us overnight, jeopardizing cancer screenings, early childhood education, primary care, and so much more.”
Trump administration officials say the changes are aimed at reducing incentives for illegal immigration and directing taxpayer dollars to citizens.
Trump admin. reinterprets 1996 welfare law
On July 10, multiple federal agencies, including the U.S. departments of Education and Health and Human Services, issued official notices saying they were reinterpreting a 1996 law that restructured the nation’s welfare programs so its prohibition on issuing welfare to undocumented immigrants applied to a wider range of federally funded services.
Under the new interpretation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, the Health and Human Services Department argues that Head Start is similar to a welfare benefit and, as a result, an undocumented parent can’t apply to participate, and an undocumented student can’t enroll.
Meanwhile, the Education Department argues that some of its programs are “public benefits” subject to the immigration status verification requirements. They include adult education and postsecondary career and technical education programs under the Perkins program—the primary federal funding source for CTE.
The Trump administration argues that those changes affect post-secondary education only and not the basic K-12 public education that undocumented students have a right to receive under the 1982 Supreme Court precedent in Plyler v. Doe.
However, the administration’s notice says that federally funded dual enrollment and early college programs—which have been growing across the country and let high school students receive college credit—are public benefits for which undocumented students aren’t eligible because they’re postsecondary rather than basic K-12 programs.
Lawsuit argues the policy is unlawful and harmful
The Democratic attorneys general who are suing argue that the federal agencies didn’t provide sufficient public notice and solicit public comments before the changes took effect. In addition, they write in the lawsuit, the Trump administration’s interpretations of the 1996 federal law “are quite simply wrong.
“On issue after issue, the administration’s new interpretation of the statute is indefensible,” the lawsuit reads. “PRWORA extends to ‘postsecondary education’ benefits; defendants now say it covers early childhood and secondary education benefits, too.”
In addition, they argue, the cost of complying with the new directive in some cases will be so high that programs will be forced to close. “Many Head Start programs are small entities that operate on razor-thin margins and are likely to close if facing a significant administrative burden,” the lawsuit argues.
The attorneys general want a judge to find the policy changes violate federal law and the Constitution, and to stop the agencies from implementing them.
A Health and Human Services department spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation. An Education Department spokesperson didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Monday.
Another Trump education policy faces a legal challenge
The attorneys general participating in Monday’s lawsuit represent: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
The new legal challenge is the 47th contesting a Trump administration education action since the president’s second term began in January, according to an Education Week analysis.
In addition to the lawsuit from the attorneys general, a coalition of state Head Start provider associations and Head Start advocates that sued the Trump administration in April over the slowed distribution of funds to Head Start providers and federal Head Start staff layoffs and office closures are seeking to add a challenge to the July 10 policy on undocumented students to their lawsuit, Chalkbeat reported.