Original Date Announced

At least four lawsuits, including a class action, allege that ORR is working in concert with ICE to prevent unaccompanied minors from being sponsored by undocumented family members who are in the U.S. The allegations are based on a leaked memo from the Trump administration. ICE will reportedly deport sponsors or other family members who seek to sponsor the unaccompanied minor. Allegations include that ORR is holding minors in below-standard facilities and detaining minors until they turn 18 and can be deported. [ID #370]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

J.A.C.M. v Hayes, 1:18-CV-903-LMB, Third Amended Class Action Complaint

The first three claims relate to the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s procedures regarding submission, review, and approval of family reunification applications. The plaintiffs claim that these procedures violated the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, 8 U.S.C. § 1232, that they violate the plaintiffs’ substantive due process rights, and that they violate procedural due process. The next two claims allege that ORR’s policy of requesting biological and biometric information from family members seeking reunification violate the Administrative Procedure Act for failure to comply with notice-and-comment rulemaking and for being arbitrary and capricious. Finally, the plaintiffs brought a claim under 28 U.S.C. 2241(c) seeking habeas relief.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

DUCHITANGA, v Lloyd, 1:18-cv-10332, Class Complaint

The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of more than one thousand children in government custody whose release is contingent on the fingerprint-based background check of their sponsor or the sponsor’s household members. The length of time that children spend in government custody has spiked precipitously in recent months, leading to overcrowded shelters. To accommodate the swelling population, the agency is now transferring hundreds of children, many of whose releases are pending the results of fingerprint checks, from shelters around the country to a “tent city” in the Texas desert that is not licensed by state child welfare authorities.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Lucas R. v Azar; 2:18-CV-05741, Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Declaratory Relief, and Nominal Damages

Named plaintiffs are several children in ORR custody (in facilities in Texas, California, New York, and Michigan) and two nonprofit organizations, the San Fernando Valley Refugee Children Center, Inc. and the Unaccompanied Central American Refugee Empowerment. The plaintiffs alleged that ORR confines unaccompanied alien children in residential treatment centers (RTCs) without a meaningful opportunity to challenge allegations that they are dangerous or pose a flight risk or that their parents or other custodians are unfit to care for them. The complaint also states that the children are detained in conditions where they are administered psychotropic medication for weeks, months, or longer without parental consent or any other procedural safeguards. Several children were reportedly prescribed medications that increase suicidality, intentional self harm, pain, nausea, and insomnia. One of the children alleged they were assaulted by staff on multiple occasions, including with pepper spray.

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

Garcia Ramirez v ICE, 1:18-cv-00508, Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs are immigrant teenagers held in the custody of Defendant U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They bring this action on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated immigrant teenagers, because ICE has failed to consider them for placement in “the least restrictive setting available” and to provide them with meaningful alternatives to detention, as required by amendments to the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA).

**Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.04 Emergency Motion for TRO - Ramirez v. ICE

The American Immigration Council and National Immigrant Justice Center filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order in response to "new Interim guidance from HQ [Headquarters] on Age-Out Custody Determinations" that has instructed ICE offices to detain unaccompanied children who aged out of the Office of Refugee Resettlement's (ORR) custody on their 18th birthday. The motion explains that the policy is a violation of a September 2021 final judgment in this case in which the district court enjoined an ICE age-out policy that failed to make individual determinations and consider placement "in the least restrictive setting available." Plaintiffs allege that as of July 2025, ICE is no longer complying with the judgment, and has been detaining age-out teenagers appearing for their first ICE check-ins following release from ORR custody. The plaintiffs request a temporary restraining order to enforce the September 2021 judgment. Ramirez v. ICE, No. 1:18-cv-00508 (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.10.04 Order Granting TRO - Ramirez v. ICE

U.S. District Court Judge Rudolph Contreras granted plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order, enjoining ICE "from implementing any new directive regarding age-outs" and "from detaining any class member in an adult ICE facility in any manner that contravenes the Permanent Injunction." The court also ordered ICE to "immediately produce that directive [on Age-Out Custody Determinations], any related policies regarding that directive, and the Age-Out Review Worksheets of any class members who may have been impacted by that directive." Ramirez v. ICE, No. 1:18-cv-00508 (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**