Justice Department can cut funding for legal guidance for people facing deportation, US judge says

News

Justice Department can cut funding for legal guidance for people facing deportation, US judge says

2025-04-16 08:47 Last Updated At：08:51

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The nonprofit groups sued about a week later, and the Justice Department then rescinded the stop-work order.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.

The Latest: Retrial of Karen Read begins in the death of her Boston police officer boyfriend

2025-04-22 22:58 Last Updated At：23:01

DEDHAM, Mass. (AP) — The second murder trial of Karen Read, whose case has sparked a national debate on police accountability and won her legions of devoted fans, began Tuesday with opening statements addressing theories about how her Boston police officer boyfriend ended up dead.

Read is accused of striking John O’Keefe with her SUV in 2022 and leaving him to die alone in the snow outside of a house party in the town of Canton, a suburb about 20 miles (32 kilometers) south of Boston. She has been charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter while operating a vehicle under the influence and leaving the scene.

During the first trial last year, prosecutors said Read intentionally backed into O’Keefe after she dropped him off at a house party and returned hours later to find him dead. The defense said she was a victim of a vast police conspiracy and that O’Keefe was fatally beaten by another law enforcement officer at the party.

A mistrial was declared last year after jurors said they were at an impasse and deliberating further would be futile. A new prosecutor, Hank Brennan, is heading the state's case for the retrial.

Here’s the Latest:

Read’s defense team used its opening statement to describe her as a victim of a cover-up and to stress that she didn’t kill O’Keefe.

“At the end of the day folks, there was no collision with John O’Keefe,” her attorney Alan Jackson said.

Jackson said the case will show that O’Keefe wasn’t hit by Read’s car. He acknowledged that O’Keefe’s death was a “tragic loss,” but said the investigation was corrupted by bias and deceit.

“The evidence in this case will establish ... above everything else three points — there was no collision with Jon O’Keefe. There was no collision. There was no collision,” Jackson said. “John O’Keefe did not die from being hit by a vehicle. The facts will show that. The evidence will show that. The data will show that. The science will show that and the experts will tell you that.”

Read and O’Keefe were headed to the end of their relationship before O’Keefe died, Brennan said.

He described how the couple’s relationship was faltering before O’Keefe died. They were arguments a few days before O’Keefe was killed and that O’Keefe had asked Read to leave, he said.

Brennan said text messages will be presented showing the tension between the couple and how Read would become irate when her calls weren’t returned.

“You will read those text messages and you will realize this was the beginning of the end of this relationship,” he told the jurors.

Brennan told the jury that O’Keefe was a “family man” who was a pillar of his community and was much more than just a police officer.

O’Keefe was a single parent of two children whom he adopted when his sister and her husband died within months of each other, Brennan said. Brennan said he cared for the children as if they were his own and provided them stability and love.

O’Keefe’s tumultuous relationship with Read changed all that, Brennan said.

“They led a good life,” Brennan said. “Enter Karen Read.”

Brennan began opening statements by describing the scene where O’Keefe was found dead.

He opened by describing how firefighters and paramedics got a call about a cardiac arrest. They jumped into the ambulance and headed out in near blizzard conditions. Their ambulance was sliding along the road and they couldn’t hear anything beyond the sound of the siren.

Arriving at 34 Fairview Road, they came upon a chaotic scene.

“He stepped out into bedlam,” Brennan said. “He heard a woman screaming.”

They came upon Karen Read, who he said told paramedics, “I hit him, I hit him.”

“It was at that time in the words of the defendant that she admitted what she had done that night, that she hit John O’Keefe,” Brennan said.

The judge addressed the heavy public interest in the trial before opening statements began.

Judge Beverly Cannone told the jury to ignore public comment about the trial while it is going on. She also told jurors it’s important not to conduct independent research or look at news coverage of the trial.

“You will decide what the facts are, where the evidence is contested, you will determine where the truth lies,” she said. “This trial will be decided by you, an independent jury.”

Cannone also told the jury not to use social media during the trial.

The jurors have entered the courtroom and received their instructions for the trial.

After giving them the instructions, the judge asked if they had refrained from discussing the case or doing any independent research about it.

The court also heard the charges against Read.

Judge Beverly Cannone said she received four motions over the weekend that need to be addressed.

She ruled that the defense can’t mention a consulting firm in their openings, which led the defense to request to be heard. They then entered into a sidebar with the defense arguing the firm should be mentioned.

The courtroom is packed, with little room for anyone other than essential court personnel and media.

The trial seats about 10 people on both sides. Read’s family is on one side and the O’Keefe’s are on the other – about 10 on each side.

Read could be seen chatting and smiling with her attorneys Alan Jackson and David Yannetti. Reporters are behind them, sitting on stools.

Barriers are set up on both sides of the street in front of the building. Several state troopers and police officers are also positioned around the courthouse.

Police ordered a truck driver who slowed down to yell “Free Karen Read” to move along, and also chased off someone who was shooting video with their phone.

Read arrived at court just before 8:50 a.m. to some cheers from assembled supporters.

Family members from both sides also arrived just before 9 a.m.

Read smiled briefly as she entered the court. She did not answer a question about whether she was ready for her second trial.

The court had a police presence to try to maintain order as supporters gathered outside.

Supporters of Karen Read have assembled outside court in advance of her new trial.

The scene among supporters is similar to a reunion, with people hugging one another and calling out their names.

Ashlyn Wade, a Read supporter from Canton, where John O’Keefe was killed, said she was there to hopefully see Read cleared of charges.

“I’m here for justice,” she said. “The murderer going to jail and Karen being Exonerated — that would be justice.”

Dennis Sweeney, dressed as the judge in the case and wearing a pink T-shirt emblazoned with the word “assassin.” which was inspired by Read’s defense team, said he returned for the second trial because: “Karen Read is factually innocent and we want her freed.”