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. 

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.