⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Ninth Circuit hears a dispute over federal funding for lawyers representing unaccompanied migrant children. In March 2025, the government terminated part of a contract that paid for direct representation in immigration proceedings. The funding flowed through Acacia Center for Justice to nonprofit legal-service providers working as subcontractors. Those providers sued, saying the cut forced them to divert other funds and threatened layoffs while their child clients still needed lawyers in court. The district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking withdrawal of the services or funding. The government will argue that this is really a contract dispute that belongs in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, not in district court. It says the providers cannot avoid that restriction by framing their request as an administrative-law challenge. The providers will argue that they seek compliance with federal law, not payment of a contractual debt, and that the government could meet its obligations through other lawyers. The underlying statute directs the government to ensure counsel to the greatest extent practicable and to seek pro bono lawyers who provide representation without charge. A related rule addresses paid representation when appropriations are available and pro bono counsel is not practicable, while preserving agency discretion. The Administrative Procedure Act permits judicial review of agency action, but excludes decisions committed to agency discretion by law. The judges will also ask whether the requested relief would remedy the organizations' own injuries, rather than only benefit the children: the redressability requirement for standing to sue.

Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto v. HHS (No. 25-2808) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, argued October 22, 2026.