The Brief

Seven years ago, the first Trump administration triggered global condemnation when news broke that it was forcibly separating children from their families at the U.S.-Mexico Border. The outcry led the administration to shutter the program, but thousands of families remained shattered.

The American Academy of Pediatrics called the policy “government-sanctioned child abuse.” Physicians who examined statements from many separated parents and children noted that most met the diagnostic criteria for major mental health disorders as a result of their experience at the border.

A class-action lawsuit followed, and the Biden administration later settled the case. In the settlement agreement, the federal government promised to repair some of the damage by reuniting the families in the U.S. and providing them with a path to asylum.

Now the second Trump administration is quietly abandoning that promise, putting thousands of once-separated families at risk of being split up a second time. At least four families have been deported already.

That’s according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the original lawsuit, known as Ms. L. v. ICE, on behalf of separated families. The ACLU filed a motion in federal court on Tuesday asking for the recently deported families to be returned to the U.S., alleging that at least one of the deportations violated an explicit court order.

It’s only one skirmish in a pitched battle that the ACLU and advocates across the country have been fighting since Trump was reelected. The organization said the settlement agreement is now in danger of unraveling.

Protesters stand outside the James A. Musick Facility, a detention center that houses unauthorized immigrants, to protest President Trump’s immigration policies and demand that children be reunited with their families in Irvine on June 30, 2018.

(

Kevin Sullivan

/

Orange County Register via Getty Images

)

Since April, the administration has chipped away at Ms. L. in a series of technical maneuvers that have profoundly impacted families covered by the settlement, according to ACLU filings. Most notably, the government pulled funding for services laid out in the agreement — like help navigating the complex immigration process, assistance with housing and medical costs, and mental health treatment. Defending its actions in court, government lawyers cited the president’s agenda to cut costs and purge contractors with diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

While the services were eventually restored, the families are still facing the consequences of the lapse, and the government has only continued to make things harder for them.

Despite orders from a judge to give Ms. L. class members more time to stay in the country legally while plodding through the asylum process, court filings say the administration has failed to demonstrate that it is doing so.

“It started off slowly, but now we’re seeing breach after breach” of the settlement agreement, said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU’s lead attorney in the case. “The administration, while claiming the settlement is still in place, is trying to undermine it in various ways that will have the effect of allowing families to be reseparated and deported.”

It’s not unusual or improper for the government to renegotiate court-ordered settlement agreements, said David Super, an administrative law expert at Georgetown University who has litigated against both Democratic and Republican administrations. But, he said, it’s “extraordinary” for the government to change its policy before receiving permission from the court, as the DOJ has done in Ms. L. this year.

“When the government unilaterally stops complying, that’s not negotiation,” he said. “That’s contempt of court.”

The Department of Justice declined to answer questions about its challenges to the settlement agreement, saying it doesn’t comment on matters that are in litigation. But in hearings before Judge Dana M. Sabraw, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego, DOJ attorneys have maintained that government agencies are “trying to meet their obligations under the settlement agreement,” and that the deportations are legal.

The California Newsroom also asked the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, how it avoids reseparating families that are entitled to protection under the Ms. L. agreement.

“ICE does not separate families,” an unnamed DHS spokesperson wrote in an email. “Parents are asked if they want to be removed with their children or ICE will place the children with a safe person the parent designates.”

Among those deported was a mother of five who was detained at a routine ICE check-in, along with her two youngest children, according to an ACLU court filing. The woman, whose family members had been separated during the first Trump presidency, had permission to stay in the United States under the terms of the settlement. She and the toddlers were deported to Honduras anyway, while the rest of their family was left behind in the U.S.

“My two youngest children cry for their father and siblings every day,” the woman, who was identified only by her initials, wrote in a declaration to the court. “It breaks my heart to see them in such pain.”

‘The sole purpose of causing them harm’

Upon approving the Ms. L. settlement agreement in December 2023, Sabraw called family separation “one of the most shameful chapters in the history of our country.”

For decades, the federal government rarely separated families at the border, often allowing them to stay in the country together while they pursued asylum. But soon after Trump took office in 2017, immigration officials began a coordinated effort to apprehend all adults who crossed without authorization, including those with children in tow. While adults were detained and deported, kids — some only a few months old — were placed in federal custody. They slept on the floors of makeshift detention centers and were later sent to other relatives or foster homes.

Central American asylum seekers wait as U.S. Border Patrol agents take them into custody in 2018 near McAllen, Texas.

(

John Moore

/

Getty Images

)

The Trump administration called the policy “zero tolerance.”

In its rush to scale up the campaign, the government lost track of which children belonged to which families. Anguished parents were kept in the dark about where immigration officials had taken their kids — and when they could see them again. Families remained separated for weeks, months, and in some cases even years. As many as 1,000 children, parents and guardians may still be separated today, according to the ACLU, which is struggling to locate and reunite them all.

Trump officials have said, both during and since “zero tolerance,” that the explicit purpose of family separation was to make the crossing so painful that it would discourage other families from trying.

The pain has lasted.

“These events caused by the government have integrated into the psyche,” said Alfonso Mercado, a psychologist in South Texas who has done clinical research and consulted as an expert witness in family separation cases at the border. The trauma, he added, makes it difficult for families to function as they struggle to move on with a new life in the U.S.

Border Patrol agents take Central American immigrants into custody on Jan. 4, 2017, near McAllen, Texas.

(

John Moore

/

Getty Images

)

“We were intentionally tearing parents and kids from each other with the sole purpose of causing them harm,” said Sara Van Hofwegen of Acacia Center for Justice, the main contractor tasked with providing separated families with legal help. “Part of what the government did through Ms. L. was it promised to help people rebuild their lives and give them a small piece of redress for everything that they went through.”

In all, the Ms. L. settlement agreement applies to roughly 8,000 people, including close family members who were affected by the separation. California is home to the largest proportion — about 12% — of class members with known addresses, according to Acacia. The organization placed two of its eight contractors in California to manage the heavier caseload.

The vast majority of the families came to the U.S. seeking refuge from violence or persecution in their home countries, Van Hofwegen said. But before pursuing asylum cases, attorneys working with families through Acacia’s legal-services contract have helped them establish temporary immigration status and get permission to work, so they can support themselves and not worry about being deported during the asylum process, which can take years.

That work ground to a halt with little warning in April, when the Trump administration abruptly cut off funding for Acacia’s legal services.

Rolling back protections

Pulling the plug on the Acacia contract was only the first of a series of government steps that have made it more difficult for formerly separated families to stay in the U.S., according to the ACLU’s court filings and advocates who provide services to them.

In May, for example, the government stopped paying travel expenses for reuniting families. It also lets invoices pile up from an adjudicator who handles disputes about who qualifies for protections. Both services are required under the settlement agreement.

A Honduran migrant and his daughter, who are taking part in a caravan heading to the U.S., rest as they wait to cross the border from Ciudad Tecun Uman in Guatemala to Ciudad Hidalgo, Mexico, on Oct. 22, 2018.

(

Orlando Sierra

/

AFP via Getty Images

)

The next month, the DOJ let another contract lapse, this one with Oakland-based Seneca Family of Agencies, which provided mental health care, medical copays and general case management for separated families.

While the ACLU fought to get funding reinstated, some families couldn’t afford medications or access mental health care on their own. Some parents, who should have been flying to reunite with their children, were stuck in their home countries. One of the deported mothers searched for legal help to keep her family in the country, but none was available during the lapse of Acacia’s contract, according to the recent ACLU filing.

“One of the M.O.s of the Trump administration in this case has been to wait until there’s almost no time to fix things and then force us to rush into court,” said Gelernt, the ACLU attorney. “But while we’re litigating that issue, there’s this lapse in services.”

DOJ lawyers defended cutting off the Acacia contract by saying it would be cheaper for the agency to provide some legal services itself and let pro bono lawyers do the rest. The ACLU argued there aren’t enough private lawyers with the willingness and expertise to do that. The Justice Department also told the court that the government had only “temporarily paused” the travel and adjudication payments while officials reviewed the contracts for cost savings.

Asylum seekers line up at the San Ysidro port of entry in Tijuana, Mexico. The ACLU announced today a preliminary agreement with the Trump administration to allow some parents already in the U.S. but separated from their children at the border to apply for asylum.

(

Gregory Bull

/

AP

)

As for the checks the government stopped cutting to Seneca, the administration suggested the organization’s efforts to hire a diverse staff may have violated anti-discrimination laws, an allegation that Seneca rejected.

“We take pride in our compliance with civil rights and employment laws and have received no specific evidence of any violations,” Seneca wrote in a June statement. “Should such information emerge, we would welcome the opportunity to review and address it.”

In four separate orders throughout the summer, Sabraw found the government was in breach of the settlement agreement by withholding funding for services. After a series of failed attempts to push back, the DOJ finally reinstated the Acacia and Seneca contracts and paid for the other lapsed services.

Advocates say they welcome the reversal, but don’t expect the government to give up its fight against the settlement agreement.

“While we’re really grateful that our contract is reinstated and that people are getting services,” Acacia’s Van Hofwegen said, “we’re prepared for ongoing attempts to roll back protections for class members.”

‘In real jeopardy’

In fact, while Acacia and Seneca scramble to rebuild teams they were forced to lay off during the lapse in services, slog through their backlog of cases and attempt to reach families they’d turned away, the government has continued to undermine the settlement agreement and fight the court on multiple fronts.

Last month, it challenged Sabraw’s standing order that requires DHS to notify the ACLU within 24 hours if it detains anyone covered by the settlement agreement, and to provide a list of those already in ICE custody or required to check in with the agency. The DOJ told Sabraw that following the orders would be too “operationally challenging,” and in early September, it appealed them in the 9th Circuit. The case is not scheduled to be heard until December.

Young migrants lie down inside a pod at a Department of Homeland Security holding facility in Donna, Texas, the main detention center for unaccompanied children in the Rio Grande Valley, on March 30, 2021.

(

Dario Lopez-Mills

/

AP/Pool

)

Meanwhile, the ACLU remains in the dark about how many Ms. L. families are at risk of being swept up by immigration enforcement.

“Everyone’s entitled to notice and everyone’s entitled to good faith in the exercise of their contractual rights,” Sabraw told DOJ lawyers during a July 17 hearing. “The fear, of course, is that the government is detaining and removing people, and to the extent they fall within the corners of the settlement agreement, it seems to me it would have an obligation, no matter how burdensome, to get it right.”

The DOJ also recently opened an entirely new objection to the settlement agreement, arguing that noncitizens applying for legal status — including Ms. L. families — should pay hundreds of dollars in fees per person and be required to reapply annually, as laid out in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed in July. Under the settlement agreement, applying should be free and status should last for three years at a time, according to an ACLU court filing.

In declarations filed with the court, legal services providers wrote that nearly 30 people protected by the settlement agreement have already been denied work authorization renewals over the fees, even though Sabraw has not yet ruled on whether they should have to pay. According to one example in the ACLU’s court filings, a family of 10 could not come up with the $2,475 to renew their papers. Several of them have lost their jobs because their work authorization expired during the lapse in legal services.

If the chaos continues, Van Hofwegen said, the added burden of renewing status more often will also tax legal-services providers, delay asylum applications and ultimately eat away at the support the settlement agreement is supposed to provide for separated families.

“It makes every piece of this legal process that’s supposed to exist for them harder and harder, with the goal of denying permanency in the U.S. to as many class members as possible,” she said.

Given the lapse in legal services, Sabraw recently extended deadlines for class members to apply for immigration documents and ordered the government to reinstate their legal status or work authorizations that expired during the stoppage.

But it’s unclear if the government has complied with that order, according to the filings. Attorneys advising class members say the administration has not responded to their requests for proof of the extension. Without official documents, the attorneys said, Ms. L. families can’t show they have a right to be in the country if they’re stopped by law enforcement.

Even if the administration eventually complies with the court’s orders, say advocates, formerly separated families can only be protected by the settlement agreement if the government is willing to honor it.

“All the work the court did and all the work the parties did over two years to reach this settlement is in real jeopardy,” Gelernt told the court during one of many hearings this summer. “We cannot leave these families drifting.”

This story was produced with The California Newsroom, a collaboration of public media outlets throughout the state. 

A years-long effort to bring fast, reliable internet to Catalina Island cleared a major vote today after the California Public Utility Commission awarded $37 million to install subsea fiber internet infrastructure between Orange County and the island.

More than 4,000 residents on Catalina Island don’t have reliable internet. That’s because the rural island doesn’t have fiber broadband infrastructure, and large communication companies don’t serve the area because of high costs.

“We currently operate off of a microwave tower, and it’s time that Avalon had nothing better than the rest of the mainland, but the same,” Avalon City Councilmember Lisa Lavelle said during public comment.

Lance Ware, CEO of AVX Networks, the telecom company tasked with building Catalina Island’s broadband infrastructure, said this project is significant to the quality of life for island residents.

“No one thought Catalina really was worthy,” Ware told LAist. “It really took a long time to convince the grant makers that this is a very much underserved community … not only digitally red lined, but forgotten about from an infrastructure perspective, and I mean that beyond communications.”

The impact to the community is almost immeasurable, he added.

“The access to that technology, workforce development, economic development and just the potential outcomes change massively for everybody involved,” Ware said. “Our ability to deliver world-class health care and public safety is huge.”

What we know about the project

The commission distributed more than $96 million in federal grant funds during Thursday’s meeting to five groups for high-speed broadband projects, including AVX Networks.

The planned proposal includes building a fiber-optic network above and underground from Catalina Island to the Orange County coast.

When it comes to internet connection, the entire island is unserved, according to the commission’s agenda report. That means it has zero access to broadband internet.

According to records, the undersea cables will run under the San Pedro Channel from two points on the island to landings near Huntington Beach. Those cables will then connect to the Middle Mile Broadband Network in Stanton.

The grant will cover 100% of the project costs, records show.

What’s next?

Grantees are required to follow a set of rules to receive funds, and that includes committing to providing internet service at affordable rates.

Ware said AVX Networks will have a low-income plan at $40 a month at 100/100 Mbps — this is the download and upload speed of the service.

“We chose to go symmetrical, which means the upload is the same as the download,” Ware added. “For people doing video streaming or telemedicine or FaceTime, even, or e-learning, it's really important to have symmetrical bandwidth.”

AVX Networks also has committed to maintaining those rates for at least 10 years, the commission agenda reported.

Next, the company needs to get permits for building out the project and surveying a route on the sea floor for the cables.

The city of Anaheim spent around $17 million on credit card purchases from places like Target, Walmart and Amazon over the past two years, recently obtained records show, but the system hasn't been audited since 2018.

Anaheim spokesperson Mike Lyster, who along with city leadership did not answer detailed questions about the purchases, confirmed the lack of audit.

The absence of audits was a central issue former purchasing agent Kari Bouffard included in a tort claim in June alleging she was fired for raising concerns that the city’s top finance official, Debbie Moreno, was enabling fraud, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars and lying to the City Council.

In the legal claim, Bouffard says when she raised concerns over the lack of an audit with the city’s audit team, which then wanted to audit the credit card program, she alleges Moreno told her: “Do not let them in the door.”

“I found her response unprofessional, dismissive, and deeply concerning, particularly given her role as Finance Director and her responsibility to support accountability and internal controls,” Bouffard wrote.

In October, Lyster confirmed an external legal team is conducting “an independent outside review” of the allegations in the tort claim. But he did not answer questions about who the firm is or how much that contract has cost the city.

LAist requested and reviewed credit card monthly billing statements for all city-issued credit cards for the past two years. The statements show city employees spent tens of thousands of public money at places like Target, Walmart and Amazon on “food, office and other operational supplies for city business purposes,” according to Lyster. The statements do not show details about specific purchases.

The Amazon purchases totaled around $1.7 million of public money over the two years, according to the data. Anaheim provided a breakdown of the Amazon purchases that did not include details about what was bought at the online marketplace.

Lyster said Anaheim monitors credit card purchases appropriately.

He confirmed credit card purchases were last audited in 2018 by the city’s Internal Audit team.

“There was no larger concern with any of the findings, and we reject any mischaracterization and misinformation about oversight of the city’s purchasing cards,” Lyster said in a statement.

Lyster told LAist the city’s purchasing agent, who until recently was Bouffard, can “pursue audits at any time,” but one has not been done recently. In the tort claim, Bouffard said she raised concerns with Moreno over “lack of time and staffing within the Purchasing Division to adequately manage and audit the program.” Moreno’s solution, she said, was a temporary staffer — “an insufficient solution given the scope of responsibilities,” Bouffard wrote.

Lyster also said the financial firm KPMG conducts an annual audit of a sample of credit card transactions. LAist asked Lyster for a copy of the KPMG sample audit, but he did not share it.

Anaheim’s credit card spending amounts to about $800,000 a month.

The city of Irvine, also one of OC’s most populous cities, spends around $500,000 on credit cards every month, according to city spokesperson Kristina Perrigoue. Those purchases are audited monthly, Perrigoue said. Irvine’s purchasing staff randomly selects one department per month to audit and they audit a sample of purchases.

“We take the five users with the highest number of transactions and audit all their transactions for the prior month,” Perrigoue said.

Why it matters

Earlier this year, Anaheim grappled with how to close a $60 million budget shortfall after spending more than they were generating in revenue. City leaders closed the deficit with proceeds from capital bonds and by pulling money previously set aside to repay debt. The City Council recently declined to put a gate tax at its entertainment venues, including Disneyland, to voters. Instead, the majority of the council decided to meet at a future date to discuss revenue generating ideas. At that meeting, Mayor Ashleigh Aitken called for “tightening our belts” to boost revenue.

LAist review of the credit card purchases showed significant spending at vendors — some with which Anaheim has cooperative agreements with.

Cooperative agreements allow agencies like the city of Anaheim to pre-negotiate pricing so they get the best deals.

Anaheim’s credit card policy states that the credit card can only be used for the small dollar purchase of supplies or off-site services. Typically, for bigger purchases, cities turn to cooperative agreements.

“The vast majority of city purchasing — most purchases more than $10,000 — is done by purchase order or contract,” Lyster told LAist.

Credit cards, Lyster said, “provide an efficient, cost-effective way of making smaller purchases, rather than use of petty cash, direct payments, cash advances and check requests, which can be more cumbersome, administratively costly and bring their own risks of misuse.”

“There are cases where a purchase order or contract would be unnecessary and excessive, adding time and cost and impacting timely service to our community,” he continued.

LAist has shared our findings with Aitken, City Manager Jim Vanderpool and all council members. We have also reached out to Moreno for an interview. We will update this story if we hear back.

Here are some of our key findings from Anaheim’s credit card purchases:

• Over $800,000 spent on restaurants

City employees spent more than $800,000 on restaurants in Southern California and elsewhere over two years including around $60,000 at K&A Restaurant and over $20,000 on In-N-Out. Some restaurants from the credit card statement include Aloha Steakhouse in Ventura County, Tacos 1986 in Pasadena and BaBaLoo Lounge in Palm Desert.

Lyster told LAist the restaurant spends “are catering expenses for events or meals for special work operations.”

He said the city also provides meals when they “bring together a large contingent of our own police officers and those of other agencies to work demonstrations, high-profile dignitary visits or other occasions,” especially for work in the evening or on weekends.

Lyster added that the council meetings are also catered and the city hosts community events where they cater food for the public.

• Around $650,000 spent on hotels

LAist’s review of the credit card purchases showed thousands of dollars spent at hotels, including the Grand Hyatt in Nashville, Caesars Palace in Las Vegas and a pet hotel in Oxnard.

“The vast majority of this spending is for employee development to ensure our people are continually learning and aware of best professional standards,” Lyster said about the hotel charges. “This is an investment in our workforce that brings better service to our community.”

• Around $40,000 spent at Costco, close to $120,000 at Sam’s Club, around $120,000 at Target and around $57,000 on Walmart purchases in two years

Lyster attributed this spend to “food and supplies.”

The Community Services Department, he said, buys “food and crafts and other supplies” for the city’s Fun on Wheels program, the Mobile Library and family resource centers.

He declined to answer questions on whether employees submit a request for the purchase of goods and services and how the city tracks if these purchases are used for public benefit. The requests, called requisitions, are typical first steps in the purchasing process detailing quantity, description and use, Bouffard told LAist. When she worked at the county, all purchases went through this “checks and balances process,” she said.

• Over $600,000 spent at Home Depot, more than $550,000 at Office Depot and over $340,000 at Grainger

Lyster didn’t confirm if the purchases at these vendors were made using a purchase order.

He confirmed Anaheim has accounts with Grainger, Office Depot and others, but not if the city’s credit card purchases at the vendors are made through the dedicated account.

LAist correspondent Jordan Rynning contributed to this report.