A federal judge in Washington state on Thursday issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking a Trump administration policy that would have prevented children in the United States illegally from enrolling in Head Start, a federally funded preschool program for low-income families.
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez said the proposed reinterpretation of eligibility rules threatened access to services that families rely upon and that there was no reason to depart from the long-standing interpretation that had governed Head Start enrollment for decades. The injunction follows lawsuits filed by Head Start associations in several states and a separate challenge by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general that had obtained temporary halts in their jurisdictions.
The rule change was proposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in July and would have reclassified certain social services, including Head Start and some community health programs, as federal public benefits. Under federal law, people in the country unlawfully are largely ineligible for federal public benefits, a point administration officials said could disincentivize illegal immigration. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has defended the reinterpretation as part of a broader effort to restrict access to federal programs for those without legal status.
Andrew Nixon, an HHS spokesman, said the agency disagrees with the court’s decisions and is evaluating next steps. The department has not yet indicated whether it will appeal Martinez’s injunction to a higher court.
Plaintiffs argued that the proposal was abrupt and lacked a transition plan and that it would force thousands of families to choose between childcare and work. Ming-Qi Chu, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union representing Head Start providers, said the policy threatened the disenrollment of more than 100,000 children from Head Start programs nationwide. Chu said the programs have historically played a large role in supporting immigrant families.
Head Start centers were not previously required to screen applicants’ immigration status. Plaintiffs said the new rule would create confusion about whose status to check — a caregiver’s, a child’s or another household member’s — and would likely sow distrust, leading to declines in enrollment even among eligible families.
Judge Martinez wrote that the change could result in parents losing childcare, risking missed work, unemployment, forced school dropouts and an inability to pay living expenses. He concluded the administration had not shown a sufficient basis for changing a decades-old interpretation that had made services available to children regardless of a parent’s immigration status.
Head Start was created six decades ago as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty and nationwide serves more than half a million low-income children through early childhood education, health, nutrition and parent involvement services. Advocates and providers have long argued that Head Start helps stabilize families’ employment and educational outcomes by providing reliable early childcare and developmental services.
The program has faced funding and administrative disruptions in recent months; federal grant freezes and temporary closures affected some Head Start programs earlier this year after administrative reviews tied to the new presidential term.
The legal fight over eligibility for federal programs sits at the center of a broader contest over immigration policy and federal benefit rules. Administration officials say narrowing eligibility will deter illegal immigration and conserve resources for lawfully present residents. Opponents say restricting access to early education and health services undermines child welfare, disrupts families and imposes costs on communities.
With Martinez’s nationwide injunction in place, the policy is paused while the litigation proceeds. Courts typically consider the likelihood of success on the merits, potential irreparable harm and public interest when deciding whether to issue preliminary injunctions. The case will continue through the federal court system as the administration weighs its next steps.