A Houston-based law firm with ties to the Trump administration has declined a $150 million federal contract offer to represent unaccompanied migrant children in U.S. custody. The Burke Law Group's decision raises questions about the long-term legal representation for these children.
The federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, had announced plans to award the contract to the firm, which has limited experience in immigration law. The offer came as the administration increased its deportation efforts and as a previous contract with nearly 100 providers expired at the end of July without a replacement.
A temporary contract for $20 million was awarded through the end of the year to the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (USCRI), a legal aid group. Attorneys from USCRI began appearing in immigration court last week to represent children they had not yet met, causing confusion among judges and attorneys previously involved.
Burke Law Group stated on social media that it had considered applying for a portion of the contract but did not specify why it ultimately decided against it. The firm's founder, Marcella Burke, served in the Trump administration as a lawyer for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. Other affiliated individuals include Justin Shubow, a proponent of classical architecture in federal buildings and a former Trump appointee, and conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro.
Federal law, including the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, requires the government to provide legal representation for children in deportation proceedings. Approximately 1,800 children were housed in shelters and about 22,000 were living with sponsors while facing deportation, according to legal service providers whose contract ended.
Some legal aid providers whose contracts expired filed a lawsuit against the administration after experiencing payment delays. A California federal judge ordered the government to pay these providers on August 6. Attorneys for the providers have argued that the interim contracts are insufficient and that their ethical obligations to the children continue despite the change in contracting.