Head Start agencies challenge Trump's immigration and anti-DEI restrictions

SEATTLE (CN) — Since the 1960s, the Head Start program has provided comprehensive early childhood education to children living in poverty. A coalition of Head Start agencies appeared in federal court on Tuesday afternoon to request that the Trump administration be stopped from gutting the program.

The Washington, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin branches of Head Start, along with two parent associations, are seeking a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order to block a directive excluding children from the program based on immigration status.

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation attorney Jennesa Calvo-Friedman, representing the plaintiffs, argued the policy creates access barriers for all children, not just non-citizens.

“This particularly impacts children who need it the most, whose families are experiencing homelessness or fleeing domestic violence or are in foster care," Calvo-Friedman said.

The directive, which the Department of Health and Human Services announced in July, calls for the agencies to “ensure enrollment in Head Start is reserved for American citizens.”

Calvo-Friedman argued that requiring families to provide immigration documentation, even if the documentation wouldn’t endanger the family, would discourage many from working with Head Start.

“Lots of families don’t have the necessary documentation. So even if they are qualified, they might not have the documentation to prove it,” Calvo-Friedman argued.

One benefit of the Head Start program is helping families gather the necessary documents for children to enroll in school and access other services.

“Head Start agencies have spent decades building trust with communities,” said Calvo-Friedman.

U.S. District Judge Ricardo Martinez, a George W. Bush appointee, acknowledged Congress’s authority to amend the law but questioned whether the executive branch also has that power.

Plaintiffs argued the Trump administration violated the Separation of Powers and defied congressional intent by unilaterally altering Head Start policy.

“The executive branch does not have the discretion to add contradictory eligibility criteria,” Calvo-Friedman said.

Michael Velchik, an attorney with the Department of Justice, argued that a temporary restraining order isn’t necessary because it has already stipulated that enforcement of the challenged guidance would be paused through September 10, pending the case in Rhode Island.

But the government hasn’t said the directive is no longer in effect, Calvo-Friedman argued.

“That intentionally sends the message to immigrant families that they are not eligible,” Calvo-Friedman said.

The plaintiffs are also seeking relief from Trump’s executive orders targeting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and withholding federal funding from grant recipients that promote or participate in DEI initiatives.

In March, the Department of Health and Human Services warned of penalties for agencies involved in DEI initiatives, and in April, it updated its grant policy to withhold funding from programs that promote them.

Plaintiffs stated that agencies have had to alter their programs to comply, with some temporarily closing and laying off staff.

But the government countered that agencies can still serve diverse communities and speak freely. Kristina Johnson of the U.S. Attorney’s Office told the court no grants had been revoked or terminated due to the DEI directives.

Martinez pressed the government, likening it to handing out a speeding ticket without ever setting a speed limit.

Johnson argued the plaintiffs lack standing because their alleged injuries are speculative and said the government is simply enforcing anti-discrimination laws.

But the Head Start agencies countered that the directives target DEI initiatives specifically, rather than anti-discrimination. Calvo-Friedman added that the policy could block tribal groups from promoting Indigenous languages and require grantees to strip DEI references.

“They have to decide between complying with the directive and violating the requirements of the Head Start Act, or they’re in compliance with the Head Start Act and in violation of the directive,” Calvo-Friedman said. “It’s really an untenable, impossible position."

Martinez declined to rule from the bench and indicated he would try to rule as soon as possible.

Alexis Cortes, a Head Start parent and community advocate, said two of her five children are currently in Head Start and the community has become like a second family. Facing the potential loss of that community is a stark reality.

“It really makes you question if I’m going to be able to give my kid the American dream they deserve and that other kids deserve,” Cortes said.

Follow @kndrleon