The Brief

After abruptly declining to renew a contract with a nonprofit to provide court-ordered legal assistance to families separated at the border under the first Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Justice has proposed providing that service itself.

Experts worry that’s a conflict of interest that could put those families at risk of deportation and being separated again.

“[Families are] being asked to trust the government that harmed them to tell them how to move forward in the best way for them,” said Sara Van Hofwegen, managing director of legal access programs at Acacia Center for Justice, which has provided the services for the past year. “The government hasn’t shown them that they have their interests in mind.”

At a Wednesday hearing in federal court, the American Civil Liberties Union contended that the government is not prepared to provide legal advice to what could be as many as 8,000 individuals with complex cases and looming immigration deadlines.

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The ACLU in 2018 filed a class-action lawsuit, Ms. L v. ICE, against the federal government for illegally separating migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border, and reached a settlement agreement with the Biden administration in 2023. The agreement provides a pathway to a temporary immigration status called parole and asylum for families who were separated, along with certain other relatives, as well as legal assistance in navigating the byzantine immigration system.

Until now, that assistance, which includes legal advice and help with immigration applications, as well as referrals to pro bono attorneys, has been provided through Acacia, a nonprofit immigrant legal defense organization, which distributed federal funding to nine subcontractor organizations around the country, including two based in California. Earlier this month, the Department of Justice abruptly informed Acacia it would not renew that contract. The contract ended yesterday.

Last week, the ACLU asked U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw of the Southern District of California, who approved the settlement agreement, to intervene.

On Friday, the DOJ specified in court filings that its Executive Office for Immigration Review, which is part of the DOJ, plans to provide legal services to formerly separated families directly “to maximize efficiency in the delivery of the program services.”

After abruptly declining to renew a contract with a nonprofit to provide court-ordered legal assistance to families separated at the border under the first Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Justice has proposed providing that service itself.

(

John Moore

/

Getty Images

)

David Super, a professor of constitutional and administrative law at Georgetown University Law Center, said that EOIR’s plan is likely illegal, violating families’ constitutional right to due process.

“It is about as extreme a conflict of interest as you can imagine for the party that is adjudicating matters to provide legal advice,” he said, adding that he knows of no precedent for EOIR’s proposal. “The government ordinarily is quite careful to not put itself in the position of providing this sort of advice in legal matters.

“The only analogy that I can think of is when police officers play good cop, bad cop in the interrogation room. But that’s not legal representation and they certainly are not allowed to present themselves as the attorney for the suspects they’re questioning.”

In court filings, EOIR has provided little detail about how it will deliver legal services to class members, noting that by May 15th it “will begin providing regularly scheduled group sessions and self-help workshops” to “equip them with the knowledge and information to successfully navigate their immigration proceedings.”

In interviews, legal service providers worried that group sessions would not provide the “ in-depth individualized consultations” required under the settlement agreement, and could make it difficult to serve families who speak different languages.

EOIR said in a court document filed yesterday that it will refer Ms. L class members to private pro bono attorneys who can provide individualized advice. Lee Gelernt, lead counsel for the ACLU in the case, contended during the hearing that this is unrealistic.

“We’re talking about thousands of cases,” Gelernt told the judge. “It takes a lot of work to get a firm to take one [pro bono] case.”

The settlement agreement required that the government “ensure that the Program is adequately resourced and funded to provide services for all unrepresented Ms. L. Settlement Class members, with the ability to increase funding to meet projected needs.”

Acacia has pointed out that, even under its existing contract, the government only supplied enough funding to provide legal services for about 12% of those who qualify.

The organization maintains a waitlist with the names and contact information of class members who are eligible for legal services under the settlement agreement, but have not yet received it. Van Hofwegen said that EOIR, communicating for the first time with Acacia, asked for a copy of the waitlist on Tuesday.

Van Hofwegen said subcontracted providers have already told families they’ve been advising that services are no longer available starting May 1.

“There were people who were scheduled for appointments next week to finish their parole applications or to help them get ready for court hearings that are coming up,” she said. “Those appointments have been canceled.”

A young girl holds a sign during a demonstration outside of the San Francisco office of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement on June 19, 2018, in San Francisco over the first Trump administration’s family separation policy.

(

Justin Sullivan

/

Getty Images

)

Immigration Center for Women and Children, one of Acacia’s subcontractors, has said it cannot abandon the cases of about 10 families who face immediate court deadlines and will continue to provide them legal services on its own dime, but they’re not taking on new participants. “As of 5-1, we’re operating without any funding,” said ICWC’s directing attorney, Danielle Fritz.

Among Van Hofwegen’s concerns is that EOIR, which has already suffered staffing cuts, may not have the capacity to handle the difficult cases presented by separated families. “These are people who have been through a lot, who have really complicated immigration histories, really complicated options of how to move forward,” she said.

Further, Fritz of ICWC worried that if services are provided directly by the EOIR from now on, program participants may be reluctant to divulge sensitive information, as they normally would as part of a legal consultation.

“We always emphasize in our services that even though we’re funded by the government and we have certain reporting requirements, we don’t reveal the content of our appointments or what we’re advising them,” she said. “There are going to be questions, of course, lack of trust, people may be unwilling to participate.”

Super, the Georgetown law professor, said that’s a reasonable fear, given that the government is essentially these families’ opposition in court, as well as the adjudicator of their cases.

“There certainly is a risk that this is going to be used to trick people into sharing information that might seem to weaken their case, when they have no representation to clarify it,” he said, citing the government’s recent use of allegedly gang-related evidence like tattoos to justify deportations.

“This administration is already taking information out of context,” he continued. “Putting them in a position to purport to provide legal services for immigrants facing deportation or incarceration opens the door wide for them [to get] more information they can distort.”

But at the hearing yesterday, Sabraw did not address the conflict-of-interest issue. Instead, he noted that the ACLU asked for relief from harms that haven’t happened yet, including the potential loss of legal status or deportation for separated family members.

The judge said that if class members miss important deadlines for parole or work authorization because they did not get legal services, the ACLU can ask the government, and then the court, for relief on a case-by-case basis.

Sabraw set a new hearing date for May 15, two weeks after the end of Acacia’s contract. He asked the ACLU to then bring any evidence that the government is failing to meet its obligations under the settlement agreement.

The California Newsroom is a collaboration of public media outlets throughout the state, with NPR as its national partner.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.