A judge in California has ruled the Trump administration breached an agreement to supply legal aid to those impacted by the U.S. government’s family separation policy.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Dana M. Sabraw, appointed by George W. Bush, issued a 19-page order mandating the enforcement of the settlement. The ruling requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to provide private attorneys to class members due to the breach.

Now, the government must re-enter into a contract with the Acacia Center for Justice — a prior arrangement abandoned earlier this year at the behest of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The long-running litigation began in 2018 and stems from the controversial policy enacted by the first Trump administration of intentionally separating immigrant children from their parents.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

The court briefly takes stock of the facts in the case in the order.

“The policy resulted in the separation of thousands of parents from their minor children, many of whom remain separated to this day,” Sabraw explains. “The policy caused lasting, excruciating harm to these families, and gratuitously tore the sacred bond that existed between these parents and their children.”

In 2021, the Biden administration quickly worked to negotiate a settlement. Discussions, however, took quite a long time and the settlement agreement in the case was only reached in late 2023.

The court found the government has since violated numerous provisions of the settlement agreement — after the plaintiffs raised an initial alarm bell in late April upon learning of DOGE’s plans.

But, at first, the court was cautious.

“Because the Acacia contract had not yet expired, the Court found there was no breach and denied the motion,” the order reads. “The Court also ordered the parties to meet and confer on the issues discussed during oral argument, and invited Plaintiffs to renew their motion if those issues could not be resolved. Unfortunately, the issues were not resolved, and the present motion ensued.”

After fully briefing the issues, the judge determined the government specifically failed to provide adequate — and promised — legal services to the class members on several fronts.

One mandatory provision of the settlement required the government to provide class members with an “individual consultation” which the agreement defines as “a one-on-one appointment during which the subcontractor would conduct a legal screening of the participant to fully understand their immigration situation and identify urgent deadlines.”

Such individually tailored legal advice, Sabraw explains, also included placing class members with pro bono attorneys suited to their needs.

Until DOGE stepped in, Acacia had been providing such services, the court notes. Then, after Acacia was let go, the government stepped in — by way of the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), a sub-agency within the U.S. Department of Justice. But the court rubbished the government’s efforts.

“Although numerous Class members have been referred to EOIR and some have requested services under the new ‘federalized’ Program, there is no evidence that any of those services have actually been provided,” Sabraw writes.

The court notes the time-sensitive nature of the disruptions. When Acacia’s contract was allowed to expire, there were some 300 class members “awaiting services by a legal service subcontractor” and over 200 of those individuals “had parole expiration dates that have either already expired or that expire this month or next.”

In their motion to enforce the settlement agreement, the plaintiffs argued that since Acacia’s contract expired, the government has not been providing any such services to the class members, “and they are therefore in breach of this provision,” the court summarizes.

The Trump administration, for its part, said it is complying with this provision “by conducting outreach to Ms. L. Settlement Class members” through various phone calls, websites and hotlines, the judge again notes in summary. But there, too, the judge sees a problem.

“None of these efforts, however, actually delivers the services set out in [the settlement agreement],” Sabraw writes. “Indeed, Defendants concede EOIR and its personnel cannot provide these services directly.”

The government also said its efforts at putting class members in touch with pro bono attorneys shows it is still in compliance with the settlement agreement. Again, the judge rejects these efforts as unavailing.

“[T]he evidence currently before the Court reflects that since the expiration of Acacia’s contract on April 30, 2025, and despite requests from and referrals of Class members to EOIR, EOIR has not placed a single Class member with pro bono counsel,” the order reads. “Thus, although Defendants intend to provide the services set out in [the settlement agreement] through pro bono counsel, the current landscape strongly suggests Defendants’ placement rate, which is presently zero, is not likely to improve. Unless or until those placements are actually made, Defendants are not providing Class members with the services required.”

As for the individualized consultations guaranteed by the settlement agreement, the government apparently did not dispute that no such thing is happening post-Acacia and post-DOGE. Rather, the Trump administration argued, the pro bono attorneys will eventually provide such consultations.

In other words, the plaintiffs understand the consultation requirement to be one step of the process that occurs before the class members are placed with an attorney. The government believes the consultations can be rolled together with attorney-provided services.

The judge, again, ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor.

“The problem with Defendants’ argument, however, is the Settlement Agreement requires those ‘individualized consultations,”” Sabraw writes. “Having agreed to that requirement, Defendants cannot just simply disregard it.”

The court elaborates here, at length:

[T]he individualized consultations required by the Settlement Agreement are the starting point for a successful pro bono referral process, and they are particularly important in this case, where Class members will undoubtedly need different kinds of legal advice. For instance, certain Class members may need assistance with parole and work authorization applications. Other Class members may need assistance with their asylum applications. Other Class members may need assistance with pending removal proceedings. And some Class members may need assistance in all three areas. Defendants’ failure to conduct the individualized consultations dooms the possibility of placing Class members with pro bono counsel, and as relevant to the present motion, is a breach of Section IV.B.2.c.ii.(b) of the Settlement Agreement.