{"id":5539,"date":"2025-04-29T06:06:32","date_gmt":"2025-04-29T06:06:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/divided-9th-circuit-denies-trumps-en-banc-bid-to-cut-legal-aid-to-migrant-children\/"},"modified":"2025-04-29T06:06:32","modified_gmt":"2025-04-29T06:06:32","slug":"divided-9th-circuit-denies-trumps-en-banc-bid-to-cut-legal-aid-to-migrant-children","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/divided-9th-circuit-denies-trumps-en-banc-bid-to-cut-legal-aid-to-migrant-children\/","title":{"rendered":"Divided 9th Circuit Denies Trump&#8217;s En Banc Bid to Cut Legal Aid to Migrant Children"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday rejected the Trump administration&#8217;s request that the full court review a federal judge&#8217;s temporary pause of the government&#8217;s funding cuts to direct legal services for unaccompanied children in immigration custody. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p>  <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>Several nonprofit legal organizations sued the administration last month in a bid to block funding cuts to the legal services the Acacia Center for Justices provides under a federal contract. The group of subcontractors argue the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services must provide the assistance under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and that the administration made the cuts in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>U.S. District Judge Araceli Mart\u00ednez-Olgu\u00edn of Northern California issued a temporary restraining order that the White House restore the funding. A Ninth Circuit panel said that ruling was not appealable.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>Ninth Circuit Judges Patrick Bumatay and Lawrence VanDyke dissented from the appellate court&#8217;s order denying en banc, or full court, review. The judges said the TRO should have been lifted in light of a separate U.S. Supreme Court decision this month that allowed the government to keep frozen $65 million in <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.com\/nationallawjournal\/2025\/04\/04\/supreme-court-says-education-department-need-not-reinstate-teacher-training-grants\/\" target=\"_blank\" link-data=\"{\" cms.site.owner=\"\" rel=\"noopener nofollow\">Department of Education grants<\/a> for teacher training and professional development.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!---->  <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>A lower court had ordered that the grants be reinstated.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>\u201cThe ink is barely dry on the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in <i>Department of Education [v. California]<\/i>, yet our court has disregarded it in two respects\u2014ignoring its conclusion controlling our jurisdiction to hear appeals of certain TROs, as well as its conclusion governing a district court\u2019s jurisdiction to interfere with government contracts,\u201d Bumatay and VanDyke jointly <a href=\"https:\/\/cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov\/datastore\/opinions\/2025\/04\/25\/25-2358.pdf\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\"><u>wrote<\/u><\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>\u201cIt is unfortunate that we are leaving this to the Supreme Court to (once again) deal with, instead of appropriately addressing it ourselves en banc,\u201d they added in a dissenting opinion joined by eight other Republican-appointed judges.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!---->  <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>Bumatay and VanDyke, two of the most prolific writers of dissents from denials of en banc review, were appointed by Trump during his first term.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>In Department of Education, the Supreme Court&#8217;s 5-4 majority held that TROs are appealable when they carry \u201cthe hallmarks\u201d and \u201cpractical effects\u201d of a preliminary injunction, Bumatay and VanDyke wrote. In this case, the TRO requires dispersing funds to the legal organizations that \u201cwill be difficult or impossible to recover,\u201d they added.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>\u201cSuch a \u2018practical effect\u2019 is characteristic of mandatory preliminary injunctive relief, not a temporary restraint,\u201d Bumatay and VanDyke wrote. They added that the the expiration of the TRO on Wednesday isn\u2019t a basis for denying en banc review.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>\u201cIf the limited duration of a TRO was always a reason to avoid en banc review, district courts could routinely interfere with executive actions for up to 28 days notwithstanding their complete lack of jurisdiction,\u201d the dissent stated. \u201cWe should have taken this case en banc to reinforce that is not acceptable.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>Bumatay and VanDyke were joined by Judges Consuelo Callahan, Sandra Ikuta, Mark Bennett, Ryan Nelson, Bridget Bade, Daniel Collins, Kenneth Lee and Daniel Bress.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/p>\n<div data-v-1c1aa57e=\"\">\n<p>The Ninth Circuit appeal is <i>Community Legal Services In East Palo Alto, v. United States Department Of Health And Human Services<\/i>, No. 25-2358.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p> <!----> <!----> <!----> <!----><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday rejected the Trump administration&#8217;s request that the full court review a federal judge&#8217;s temporary pause of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":5540,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[1676,907,4591,2610,2971,610,3021,1242,536,136,5710,963],"class_list":["post-5539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-9th","tag-aid","tag-banc","tag-bid","tag-children","tag-circuit","tag-cut","tag-denies","tag-divided","tag-legal","tag-migrant","tag-trumps"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5539"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5539\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5540"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}