Justice Department can cut funding for legal guidance for people facing deportation, US judge says
A federal judge on Tuesday allowed the Justice Department to temporarily stop funding legal education programs for people facing deportation or immigration court while a lawsuit brought by the organizations that provide the service moves forward in court.
The decision from U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss in Washington, D.C., means a coalition of nonprofit groups that offer the education programs will lose their federal funding Wednesday — and possibly some access to potential clients inside detention centers.
Unlike criminal cases, people in immigration courts and detention centers don't have a right to an attorney if they can't afford one themselves. Proponents of the legal education programs say they ease the burden on immigration judges and help immigrants navigate the complicated court system more efficiently.
Congress allocates $29 million a year for four programs — the Legal Orientation Program, the Immigration Court Helpdesk, the Family Group Legal Orientation and the Counsel for Children Initiative — and those groups spread the funding to subcontractors nationwide.
The Justice Department first instructed the nonprofit groups to 'stop work immediately' on the programs on Jan. 22, citing an executive order from President Donald Trump targeting illegal immigration.
The nonprofit groups sued about a week later, and the Justice Department then rescinded the stop-work order. But on April 11, the agency said it was terminating its contracts with the groups nationwide, effective 12:01 a.m. April 16.
During a hearing Tuesday afternoon, Moss told attorneys on both sides that he didn't see enough immediate justification to order the Justice Department to keep the funding in place for now.
Still, Moss said he wanted more information before hopefully coming to a final decision in the case next month.
When the Justice Department first ordered the work stopped in January, the nonprofit groups were also cut off from even reaching out to immigration detainees, said Laura Sturges, an attorney representing the nonprofit groups.
That access was cut off so completely that they were even ordered to remove informational posters and other educational materials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention centers, Sturges said. That damaged the First Amendment rights of the organizations to disseminate information, she said, and left noncitizens without any legal aid, placing a greater burden on immigration judges and immigration courts.
Sturges said the funding cuts wrongly usurped Congress' spending power, because the money had already been allotted and the Justice Department had not yet identified any replacement programs to use the funds. And she argued the cuts were arbitrary and capricious because the Justice Department didn't provide any justification for ending the contracts other than 'convenience.'
But Justice Department attorney Zachary Sherwood told the judge that the case was essentially a contract dispute, and shouldn't be handled in U.S. District Court at all. Instead, Sherwood said, the dispute should be moved to the Court of Federal Claims, which handles most contract-related claims against the federal government.
'I think there are a number of substantial and important issues that this case presents,' Moss said.
He gave the attorneys a list of details he wants before the next hearing on May 14, including any records showing how the Justice Department decided to end the contracts, any plans for spending the earmarked money in the future, and information about any problems the nonprofit groups experience as they try to reach out to detained noncitizens in the coming weeks.
A few blocks away from the federal immigration courts in New York City, a leader of one affected program testified at a city council hearing on immigration fraud.
'We're often the first attorneys people are able to speak to about their immigration cases,' said Hannah Strauss, an immigration lawyer who supervises a team triaging cases for the Immigration Court Helpdesk run by Catholic Charities.
New York state is one of only six states in the U.S. where more than half of immigrants are represented by an attorney in pending immigration cases, according to government data compiled by Syracuse University's Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. That's thanks in part to state and city grants, as well as a large pool of lawyers who volunteer. But federal funding forms an important part of the system.
Strauss said the $1.2 million federal grant covering New York covered the Helpdesk, a skeleton crew relied upon by other nongovernmental organizations to screen immigration referrals and by immigration judges to explain the basics on laws regarding asylum and other forms of legal immigration.
'Unfortunately today marks the final day of both ICH and FGLOP, as the federal government has chosen to terminate our contracts as of midnight tonight,' said Strauss, referring to her organization and the Family Group Legal Orientation Program, run by the Acacia Center for Justice.
The main reason for falling prey to immigration scams is the lack of legitimate legal help, said immigrants at the hearing who testified without using their names, citing fear they could become targets of ICE for speaking out. Details they shared were representative of cases that have been investigated by federal prosecutors, costing immigrants thousands of dollars.
In the hearing, the city council discussed ways to crack down on immigration service providers advertising exaggerated or outright fraudulent services.
___ Boone reported from Boise, Idaho, and Attanasio reported from New York.
Rebecca Boone And Cedar Attanasio, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Idaho rethinks LGBTQ rights as laws, symbols, and support face pushback
Stories by Idaho Statesman journalists, with AI summarization This collection of stories examines recent efforts by Idaho lawmakers and officials to restrict LGBTQ rights in public spaces, marriage, sports, education, and community symbols. State legislators advanced a resolution to revoke same-sex marriage rights and praised decisions by Boise State's women's volleyball team to opt out of matches involving transgender athletes. Businesses like Micron and St. Luke's have pulled back public support for diversity, equity and inclusion programs, with St. Luke's employees voicing disappointment over the decision not to fly the Pride flag during Pride Month. Boise officials kept flying the Pride flag at City Hall despite a new law banning non-government flags, and city leaders debated how to navigate the law's lack of penalties. At the Nampa Public Library, a youth club flyer led to public disputes, while statewide book bans faced lawsuits over their impact on LGBTQ content and First Amendment rights. Read the stories below. Boise State has forfeited two volleyball games against San Jose State this season, including one that was scheduled for Thursday. | Published November 19, 2024 | Read Full Story by Shaun Goodwin 'Unfortunately ... there are Republican factions that have infiltrated Idaho who only support constitutional rights if they are in alignment with what they believe.' | Published November 23, 2024 | Read Full Story by Carolyn Komatsoulis 'This is yet another example of the extreme wing of the Republican Party ginning up divisive social issues in order to create problems where none exist,' said Idaho's Democratic leadership. | Published January 7, 2025 | Read Full Story by Ian Max Stevenson Idaho voters should have enough self-respect to punish this abuse of government power at the ballot box. | Opinion | Published February 5, 2025 | Read Full Story by Bryan Clark Boise 'will continue' to fly the Pride flag outside City Hall, a spokesperson said. She did not answer a question about whether the city knew that it was illegal. | Published April 11, 2025 | Read Full Story by Sarah Cutler Idaho companies like Micron and St. Luke's face growing political pressure on diversity-related initiatives. | Published June 2, 2025 | Read Full Story by Angela Palermo We don't approach this viewpoint from a political or personal value system. We approach it from the lens through which we healthcare workers view every patient encounter... | Opinion | Published June 2, 2025 | Read Full Story by Undersigned St. Luke's employees The Trump administration has been rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. | Published May 31, 2025 | Read Full Story by Carolyn Komatsoulis Laws like this one can be problematic, a lawyer said. | Published June 5, 2025 | Read Full Story by Carolyn Komatsoulis The summary above was drafted with the help of AI tools and edited by journalists in our News division. All stories listed were reported, written and edited by McClatchy journalists.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
How Trump's big bill could affect your taxes
President Trump's bill to cut taxes and spending centers on an extension of his previous round of tax cuts, which Republicans slated for expiration at the end of this year back in 2017. As such, it will preserve the status quo on many big parts of the code so that taxpayers won't see any change in things like the amount of money the government takes out of their paychecks. Other tax cuts in the legislation now moving through Congress will be brand new, though most of the new additions are scheduled to end after a few years. Here's a look at some of the big-ticket items in the latest round of GOP tax cuts. Trump's 2017 tax law cut many individual income tax rates, and those would continue into the future through the current legislation. Under current law and moving up the income spectrum, marginal rates are 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent, and 37 percent. The new GOP law will lock those rates in place. The extension of those rates will reduce federal revenues by $2.2 trillion through 2034, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). If they were allowed to lapse, rates would change to 10 percent, 15 percent, 25 percent, 28 percent, 33 percent, 35 percent, and 39.6 percent. Only the 10-percent and 35-percent rates were left alone by the 2017 tax cuts. Trump in recent weeks floated letting the top rate go back to 39.6 percent from 37 percent as a way to lower the $3.8 trillion cost of the bill's tax portion, but he has since backed away from that idea. The law preserves — and temporarily boosts — the higher standard deduction, which was nearly doubled back in 2017. The new boost is $1,000 for individuals and $2,000 for couples filing jointly and will last for four years. This is paired with getting rid of personal exemptions, making tax filing simpler for many taxpayers. In 2024, the standard deduction was $14,600 for individuals and $29,200 for married couples. The higher standard deduction is projected to reduce revenues by $1.3 trillion through 2034. The loss of personal exemptions will add $1.9 trillion to federal revenues, resulting in a net revenue gain between the two measures. The bill creates a temporary full deduction for tips and overtime pay, allowing taxpayers to avoid paying taxes on those types of compensation. Taken together, the tax breaks will reduce revenues by about $164 billion through 2028 when they expire. People who work in the restaurant industry say they're concerned that the tax break will motivate customers to pay fewer gratuities, since tipping is left to the discretion of individual shoppers and diners as opposed to being a component of the employer-paid wage. 'I'm afraid that people are going to want to tip less with that income not being taxed,' one New York City bartender, who asked not to be named, told The Hill. The person also expressed concern that the no-tips rule could add to tensions in his restaurant between the front-of-house staff, who work for tips, and the kitchen staff, who do not. 'In the industry, the bigger concern is, why would the front-of-house not pay taxes when the back-of-house will still be paying taxes because they don't get tips?' the person said. Tax experts told The Hill the measures could add to the amount of paperwork that tax filers — both employers and employees — need to fill out, depending on how the IRS interprets the law and modifies its regulations and forms. The law gives an additional $4,000 tax break to seniors below a certain income threshold, which would be added to the $15,000 standard deduction and an already existing $2,000 deduction for seniors. Trump promised while campaigning to remove taxes on Social Security, which is funded through a payroll tax and then taxed again, above an income threshold, upon disbursal to bolster the Social Security fund along with Medicare. The enhanced deduction for seniors is a close substitute for the Social Security tax cancellation promised by Trump but is technically a different tax. According to congressional rules, the Social Social program cannot be altered through budget reconciliation, which is the legislative workaround Republicans are using to allow a party-line vote on their bill and avoid a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Republicans haven't agreed on the most controversial provision of their tax bill — the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap — but they're getting close. The initial proposal from the Ways and Means Committee raised the cap to $30,000, but members of the SALT caucus shot it down. Another proposal floated late Tuesday would bump the SALT deduction cap up to $40,000 — four times the current $10,000 cap — for people making $500,000 or less in income, three sources told The Hill. That level would increase by 1 percent a year over 10 years, according to one of the sources. Whatever they agree to, it will be expensive. Various estimates from the JCT put the cost of canceling the cap — which is a top priority for many blue-state Republicans — at around $1 trillion over 10 years. The SALT cap interacts with different parts of the tax code, including the higher standard deduction and the extended effective repeal of the alternative minimum tax (AMT), which costs more than $1.4 trillion in revenues. 'Even if you live in a place like New York, the combination of repealing the AMT and the $10,000 SALT cap was actually still positive for you. You were better off with the SALT cap because you lost the AMT than you would have been if the law hadn't happened at all,' Tax Policy Center senior fellow Howard Gleckman told The Hill. 'It was actually a good deal for people,' Gleckman said. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump has rejected police reform. States and localities must take the lead.
Five years after a Minneapolis police officer brutally murdered a handcuffed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for over nine minutes, prompting worldwide protests against wrongful police killings of Black people, the Trump administration has taken a giant step back from police reform. The Justice Department announced in May that it is abandoning agreements reached with police departments in Minneapolis and Louisville, Ky., mandating reforms designed to reduce killings, brutality and other police misconduct. The Justice Department is conducting a review to determine if it should drop similar agreements with about a dozen other police departments. On top of this, the Justice Department will end civil rights investigations of alleged criminal conduct by the Louisiana State Police and police departments in Memphis, Mount Vernon, N.Y., Oklahoma City, Phoenix and Trenton, N.J. Thankfully, Minneapolis officials announced that they will abide by their agreement, known as a consent decree, reached with the Justice Department in the closing days of the Biden presidency. But it is absurd to depend on police departments to police themselves. The federal government has a duty to protect people from police who engage in criminal conduct. The dangerous pullback by the Justice Department is likely to result in more wrongful deaths at the hands of police — particularly of Black people and members of other minority groups. A nationwide count by the Washington Post of deadly shootings by police from 2015 through 2024 found that Black people 'are killed by police at more than twice the rate' of white people in America. The number of non-Hispanic whites killed by police was 4,657, compared with 2,484 Black people. Because only 14 percent of the American population is Black, the number of people killed by police annually averaged 6.1 per million of the Black population, compared with 2.5 per million of the white population. There are, of course, times when police must use deadly force to prevent the killing of others. But this wasn't the case with Floyd and many others killed by police. Floyd, who was unarmed, was only suspected of using a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes. As a Black man like Floyd, I have experienced the unfair and harsh treatment some officers give to people who look like us. I've been stopped on the road and detained in front of my home by police several times when doing nothing wrong. I've been ordered out of my home and car to lay on the ground, had guns pointed at me, been handcuffed and been threatened with arrest. I don't think I would be treated this way were it not for the color of my skin. Most police officers never beat, shoot or kill anyone. They risk their lives to keep us safe and deserve our gratitude. But it is naive to believe that officers can do no wrong, that we live in a colorblind society or that there is no such thing as systemic racism. In the wake of the Trump administration's rejection of its duty to protect us all from police misconduct, the job of implementing needed reforms must go to state and local governments that oversee police agencies. Here are some actions they should take. Increase police funding to implement reforms: After Floyd's murder, some progressives adopted the slogan 'defund the police.' That was a mistake. Police departments need more federal, state and local government funding to better train and pay officers and to put more officers on the street to do police work the right way. More funding will make it less likely that police engage in the kind of unlawful violence that killed Floyd and too many others. Polling by CBS in 2022 found only 9 percent of Americans believed providing less funding for police would help prevent violent crime, while 49 percent said more funding for police would do so. A Gallup poll the same year found 89 percent of Americans believed minor or major changes were needed to improve policing — including 87 percent of whites, 90 percent of Hispanics and 95 percent of Blacks. Focus on preventing crime, not just crime response: Putting more cops on the street and having them get out of their patrol cars to build relationships with people and businesses helps officers gather intelligence about bad actors. The increased presence of officers in communities will prevent crime. This is an expensive but necessary step if we are serious about police reform. Independently investigate alleged misconduct: Rather than relying on police departments to police themselves and investigate officers accused of misconduct, states and localities should set up independent commissions to objectively conduct such investigations. Reward good cops and punish bad ones: Officers who report misconduct by colleagues should be rewarded financially and with promotions, while officers acting improperly should be disciplined, including with firing and prosecution when they commit crimes. A national database of fired officers should be established so bad cops can't get hired by departments in other localities. Increase police pay and education requirements: Raising police pay will make it easier to attract well-qualified job applicants. Departments should require every new hire to have at least two years of college and eventually a four-year degree. A 2017 national survey found that about 52 percent of officers had two-year college degrees, about 30 percent had four-year degrees and about 5 percent had graduate degrees. Governing Magazine reported in 2023 that 'research suggests that officers with college degrees generate fewer substantiated complaints and … are less likely to shoot or kill members of the public.' Increase screening of police recruits and veteran officers: Use psychological tests and in-depth interviews to identify those unsuitable for police work because they are too eager to use violence — especially if they feel threatened — or too prejudiced against certain groups. Increase officer training: Better training will make officers better able to do their jobs without resorting to deadly force. This should include training in psychology and mental health to assist officers in dealing with people experiencing a mental health crisis. Alternatively, set up a division of mental health police officers to address incidents where drugs or mental issues are the source of bad conduct. 'One in five fatal police shooting victims may have been experiencing a mental health crisis … at the time of their death,' a federal study of 633 deadly police shootings concluded. These recommendations are all common sense and promote justice and public safety. With the Trump administration abandoning its responsibility to investigate police misconduct and demand reforms, the job passes to state and local governments. Doing so would be a fitting tribute to George Floyd and the many others wrongfully killed by police. A. Scott Bolden is an attorney, former New York state prosecutor, NewsNation contributor and former chair of the Washington, D.C. Democratic Party. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
