51品茶

WASHINGTON 鈥� The 51品茶 has filed a public comment in opposition to the Department of Health and Human Services鈥� (HHS) unlawful, harmful, and sweeping directive seeking to exclude immigrant communities from participating in vital community health and education services that benefit everyone. Last month, HHS issued a directive declaring that 13 programs will no longer be open to all and will instead for the first time be considered programs restricted under a law enacted nearly three decades ago, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). These programs include community health centers, mental health and substance use treatment programs, Head Start, the Title X Family Planning Program, and many others. The directive conflicts with PRWORA and upends longstanding guidance respected by four prior administrations. 鈥淭his arbitrary and harmful directive exemplifies this administration鈥檚 tunnel vision, which prioritizes its anti-immigrant crusade, no matter the harms,鈥� said Ming-Qi Chu, deputy director of the 51品茶 Women鈥檚 Rights Project. 鈥淚f HHS does not abandon this cruel and unlawful directive, hundreds of thousands of children will have their early childhood education disrupted, millions will lose access to life-saving health care like family planning services, cancer screenings, and addiction treatment, and many people with disabilities, including U.S. citizens, could have their care delayed due to bureaucratic immigration status checks. It serves no one鈥檚 interest to deny people these essential services, and HHS must withdraw this incredibly misguided directive.鈥� The 51品茶鈥檚 comment highlights that the directive is unlawful, arbitrary, and capricious, fails to meaningfully consider the impacts of the action, and will harm communities across the country 鈥� from children in schools, to people with disabilities, to low-income families denied essential health care, to people recovering from substance use disorder, to survivors of gender-based violence. The comment also notes that the directive will cause a chilling effect that harms immigrant communities that remain eligible, including for mixed status families and others who may be fearful or confused about whether seeking health care might expose them to immigration enforcement or retaliation. 鈥淭he Directive has triggered chaos and uncertainty both for administering agencies and the individuals, families, and communities who rely on the services at stake. [鈥�] It will deprive children of access to crucial early educational programming and undermine access to essential and life-saving health care for children and their families. It will also disproportionately burden mixed-status families, people with disabilities, and survivors of gender-based violence,鈥� the comment reads. The comment is available here: /documents/aclu-comment-in-opposition-to-hhs-directive-on-prwora

SEATTLE, Wash. 鈥� Today, parent advocacy groups and a coalition of Head Start providers 鈥� plaintiffs in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the Trump administration鈥檚 unlawful attacks on the Head Start program 鈥� announced they have requested to amend their complaint to challenge the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services鈥� (HHS) latest directive, which seeks to exclude many immigrant families from accessing early childhood education by restricting participation in Head Start based on immigration status. Yesterday, HHS issued a directive reinterpreting a nearly 30-year-old law to expand the definition of 鈥渇ederal public benefit鈥� under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to now include Head Start 鈥� effectively making some immigrant children ineligible for the first time in the program鈥檚 history. The agency provided no implementation guidance to Head Start agencies and declared the policy effective immediately, while also noting that PRWORA鈥檚 verification requirements remain unchanged. The lack of clarity around how the directive will be enforced is creating confusion and fear among providers and families alike. 鈥淚n Chicago, our programs already see families living in fear 鈥� including refugees, undocumented parents, and those here on student visas. Many are paralyzed, unsure if it鈥檚 safe to bring their children to Head Start. This directive adds to that fear, denying children critical educational opportunities and threatening the well-being of entire communities,鈥� said Lauri Frichtl, executive director, Illinois Head Start. In response, plaintiffs are seeking to amend their lawsuit to challenge this unlawful reinterpretation, which contradicts PRWORA and the Head Start Act and threatens to undermine a program that has served over 40 million children and families across the country. "In Alameda County, hundreds of children and thousands of jobs will be affected by this directive. Locally over half of the children from these programs come from immigrant families and the directive will significantly chill participation in our Head Start programs,鈥� said Clarissa Doutherd, executive director of Parent Voices Oakland. 鈥淚mmigrants are threaded through the fabric of our communities and threatening them tears communities apart.鈥� The plaintiffs include parent groups Parent Voices Oakland and Family Forward Oregon, and the Head Start associations of Washington state, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs in the case are represented by the 51品茶, the 51品茶 of Washington, the 51品茶 of Illinois, and the Impact Fund. 鈥淗HS is defying Congress by attempting to impose an immigration-based restriction that neither PRWORA nor the Head Start Act requires or permits,鈥� said Ming-Qi Chu, deputy director of the Women's Rights Project at the 51品茶. 鈥淚n the nearly 30 years since Congress enacted PRWORA, Head Start has never been understood as a 鈥榝ederal public benefit.鈥� Reinterpreting PRWORA now to exclude immigrant children is unlawful and a direct attack on some of the very families this program was created to serve. It is clearly inconsistent with the statute鈥檚 text and Congress鈥� purpose.鈥� 鈥淣ot only are these exclusions illegal, but the administration has escalated its attack on Head Start, children, and families by declaring that HHS鈥檚 unilateral reinterpretation of a law passed by Congress takes effect immediately. This is a clear attempt to evade the required review process, and we are asking the Court to hold the administration accountable to the rule of law,鈥� said Lori Rifkin, litigation director at the Impact Fund. The administration's staff cuts, delays, and immigration directive threaten the vital early education, health, and social services that more than 800,000 children and families rely on each year. Plaintiffs are urging the court to declare this multi-pronged dismantling of Head Start unlawful and unconstitutional, and to block the administration鈥檚 continued defiance of Congress鈥� mandate to serve low-income families. An overview of the case can be found here. A copy of the motion to amend complaint can be found here.

WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a press release announcing a notice of interpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law to restrict access to critical early education programs for immigrant families. The agency鈥檚 action unlawfully expands the definition of 鈥渇ederal public benefit鈥� for HHS under the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) to include Head Start 鈥� effectively making certain children ineligible for Head Start for the first time in the program鈥檚 history. HHS鈥檚 notice offers no implementation guidance to Head Start agencies and declares the interpretation is effective immediately. HHS also notes that verification requirements under PRWORA remain unchanged, which makes the full scope of the operational impact of the policy unclear. If the notice takes effect, plaintiffs in a lawsuit that was filed in April challenging attacks by the Trump administration to Head Start vow to amend their complaint to fight back against this new attack on Head Start. The plaintiffs include parent groups Parent Voices Oakland and Family Forward Oregon, and the Head Start associations of Washington state, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Plaintiffs in the case are represented by the 51品茶, the 51品茶 of Washington, the 51品茶 of Illinois, and the Impact Fund. 鈥淗ead Start was created to serve low-income children and families, including immigrant communities who are vital to our economy and our future. This directive attempts to force agencies to turn away the very families we are legally mandated to support. It鈥檚 a cruel and unlawful move that threatens the wellbeing of children and the stability of entire communities,鈥� said Joel Ryan, executive director, Washington State Head Start & Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program. 鈥淗ead Start has been a cornerstone in communities across the country. We urge Head Start providers to continue to serve children and refrain from making any immediate changes to enrollment policy until they have an opportunity to fully evaluate their legal obligations,鈥� said Jennie Mauer, executive director of the Wisconsin Head Start Association. 鈥淎s part of its broader attack on working families, this administration is unlawfully attempting to rewrite the PRWORA to make it harder for children to access critical early childhood education. No agency 鈥� including HHS 鈥� has ever defined early education as a restricted 鈥榝ederal public benefit,鈥欌�� said Jennesa Calvo-Friedman, senior staff attorney at the 51品茶 Women鈥檚 Rights Project. 鈥淭he Head Start Act clearly states it is an education program with the purpose to 鈥榩romote the school readiness of low-income children,鈥� and includes both statutory and regulatory criteria which impose no eligibility restriction based on immigration status.鈥� "Implementation of this directive will create fear and confusion for immigrant families about enrolling their children in Head Start regardless of what their legal status may be. This will harm children and destabilize Head Start programs,鈥� said Lori Rifkin, litigation director at the Impact Fund. 鈥淚f the administration moves forward with publication of this notice, we will take legal action.鈥� The case page can be found here.

WASHINGTON 鈥� The Supreme Court today granted certiorari in two federal court cases involving transgender youth challenging bans on their participation in local school and college sports. 鈥淟ike any other educational program, school athletic programs should be accessible for everyone regardless of their sex or transgender status. Trans kids play sports for the same reasons their peers do鈥搕o learn perseverance, dedication, teamwork, and to simply have fun with their friends,鈥� said Joshua Block, Senior Counsel for the 51品茶鈥檚 LGBTQ & HIV Project. 鈥淐ategorically excluding kids from school sports just because they are transgender will only make our schools less safe and more hurtful places for all youth. We believe the lower courts were right to block these discriminatory laws, and we will continue to defend the freedom of all kids to play.鈥� 鈥淥ur client just wants to play sports with her friends and peers,鈥� said Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Tara Borelli. 鈥淓veryone understands the value of participating in team athletics, for fitness, leadership, socialization, and myriad other benefits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit last April issued a thoughtful and thorough ruling allowing B.P.J. to continue participating in track events. That well-reasoned decision should stand the test of time, and we stand ready to defend it.鈥� Earlier this year, efforts to enact a national ban failed in the U.S. Congress. Since 2020, 27 states have banned transgender youth from playing school sports. Many of these bans allow for invasive forms of sex testing that put all female student athletes at risk and open the door for any school official or adult to question and harass young women. In Florida, a 15-year-old junior varsity volleyball player was the subject of a police investigation after an anonymous accusation, prompting local officials to draft a 500-page report investigating her medical history, body weight, and anatomy. In Utah, a teenage basketball player was accused of being transgender by a member of the state board of education, leading to threats of violence against her and her family, and a teenager in Maine faced a similar attack from a state senator. In May, President Donald Trump bullied a 16-year-old transgender girl for participating in a high school track meet. Many women athletes have spoken out against bullying and discrimination against transgender student athletes. This includes Billie Jean King, Megan Rapinoe, Dawn Staley, Sue Bird, and Brianna Turner, as well as leading organizations fighting for gender equality in athletics including the Women鈥檚 Sports Foundation, the Women鈥檚 National Basketball Player鈥檚 Association, and the National Women鈥檚 Law Center. The two cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear include: Little v. Hecox, a challenge brought by one transgender and one cisgender student athlete against Idaho鈥檚 2020 ban on transgender athletes and requirements for sex testing West Virginia v. B.P.J., a challenge brought by a teenage transgender girl against West Virginia鈥檚 2021 ban on transgender athletic participation The two cases charge the bans with violating the rights of transgender and cisgender female students under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. In addition, West Virginia v. B.P.J. argues that the bans violate Title IX, the federal law prohibiting sex discrimination in educational programs. Federal courts have blocked enforcement of these bans in both lawsuits. These cases are part of the 51品茶鈥檚 Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.