2026 Grantees Submit Third Quarter Case Reports
All of the Barbara McDowell Social Justice Center’s 2026 grantees were contacted in July in accordance with the Center’s requirements and reported with respect to the progress of their case through the third quarter of their grant cycle. Each grantee’s report can be found below. In addition to reporting on their progress, each grantee submitted third quarter timesheets for their case work and met with the Center team to discuss their cases.
Amica Center for Immigrant Rights
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) has withheld payment for all direct legal representation services rendered to unaccompanied Immigrant children since December 2025 by the CLSEPA v. HHS[1] plaintiffs and other providers. This withholding of funds is in direct violation of the April 29, 2025, Preliminary Injunction, which prohibited the government from withdrawing the services or funds provided by ORR as of March 20, 2025, under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization of 2008 (TVPRA) and ORR's Foundational Rule. Providers have warned that months of nonpayment have forced organizations to search for emergency resources, make staffing changes, and, in some cases, limit services. When that infrastructure is destabilized, children are the ones put at risk of being left to navigate immigration proceedings alone.
On July 1, 2026, the co-counsel and plaintiffs in the CLSEPA v HHS lawsuit filed a Motion for an Order to Show Cause on why the Defendants should not be held in civil contempt for violating the April 29 Preliminary Injunction order. The Court granted this request on July 2, requiring the government to show cause why defendants are not in violation of the Court’s Preliminary Injunction. On Thursday, July 16th, a federal court in the Northern District of California will hear arguments over whether the Trump administration is violating an April 2025 court order requiring it to continue funding legal representation for unaccompanied children.
—————
[1] The case is co-counseled by the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Justice Action Center, and Gibson Dunn, and brought by 11 nonprofit legal services organizations across the country (CLSEPA, Social Justice Collaborative, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Estrella del Paso, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, Galveston-Houston Immigrant Representation Project, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, National Immigrant Justice Center, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, and Vermont Asylum Assistance Project).
JULIAN were contacted by the 5th Circuit mediation program on May 12, 2026. JULIAN agreed to enter mediation with the city of Lexington on July 21, 2026 at 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and did not reach a resolution. JULIAN anticipates a response from the defendants Friday, July 24, 2026.
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
On April 27th, the Court granted Louisiana’s motion to stay discovery pending resolution of the State’s sovereign immunity arguments, which the Court is expected to address in its forthcoming ruling on Louisiana’s motion to dismiss. Since then, the case has seen little substantive activity.
Following Louisiana’s related lawsuit against the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a sur-reply raising additional arguments in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The Court granted that request, and we filed our sur-reply on May 1st. Until the Court releases its ruling on the motion to dismiss, we do not expect more progress in the case.
Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, UC Hastings College of Law
In Al Otro Lado et al. v. Trump et al., CGRS and our co-counsel are challenging the Trump administration’s unlawful use of 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) to deny access to the asylum process to individuals seeking safety at ports of entry along the U.S. southern border. In addition to suspending access to the asylum process, the case challenges the administration’s abrupt cancellation of all scheduled appointments on CBP One—a government-administered mobile app that was notoriously difficult to access—leaving approximately 30,000 asylum seekers with no alternative means to seek protection.
We are awaiting the court’s decision on the government’s motion to dismiss. As we anticipated, the ruling on that motion may be affected by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, in which we also serve as co-counsel. That case challenged the now-defunct turnback policy under which immigration officers at official border crossings physically blocked people seeking safety from setting foot on U.S. soil. On June 25, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could turn back asylum seekers at ports of entry along the southern border without violating federal immigration law because such individuals “arrive[] in the United States” only when they cross the border.
The day after the Supreme Court decision was issued, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ordered both parties in this case to submit supplemental briefing addressing whether, and to what extent, the Supreme Court’s ruling affects Al Otro Lado et al. v. Trump et al. The supplemental briefs are due in August 2026. As we will set forth in our briefing, the question presented in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado—namely, the meaning of “arrives in the United States”—is unrelated to the statutory framework on which the government is currently relying to block people from accessing the asylum process at ports of entry.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado is disappointing, though not unexpected, and Al Otro Lado et al. v. Trump et al. represents the next step in our effort to defend against further erosion of asylum rights and the rule of law. We are pursuing this case, alongside other pending litigation and legal challenges to restrictive border policies, to safeguard the right to seek asylum and prevent the complete—and systematic—dismantling of the U.S. asylum system. We have also leveraged our nationwide campaign, No Turning Back, to advocate for asylum access at the southern border. In the lead-up to the Supreme Court decision in our case Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, we mobilized over 40 coalition partners—including faith-based, legal, and humanitarian organizations—to urge leaders to reject turnbacks and other restrictive border policies. We published two video series spotlighting the perspectives of partners working along the border, mobilized community members for a vigil and rally on the day of our hearing, developed messaging guidance and shareable social media content, and secured both traditional and digital media engagement, including amplification by content creators who spread our message to hundreds of thousands of followers. In the coming months we will build on the momentum of No Turning Back to advance policy solutions that mitigate the harm caused by the Court’s decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado.