In recent months, immigrant children arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border alone have increasingly faced immigration court proceedings without legal representation, highlighting a growing challenge in the nation’s immigration system. The issue stems from a contract dispute between the federal government and nonprofits that historically provided legal services to unaccompanied minors.
During a September hearing in Manhattan, six migrant children between the ages of 13 and 17 appeared remotely before an immigration judge without lawyers. Among them was a 15-year-old boy from Guatemala who agreed to voluntary departure—a decision with significant legal consequences that was not clearly explained to him. Similar scenes have played out in Texas and Arizona, where vulnerable children, including a 7-year-old and a 1-year-old baby, have attended deportation hearings without counsel.
According to the Vera Institute of Justice, unaccompanied minors lacked legal representation in roughly 55 percent of nearly 50,000 completed immigration cases through August 2026, marking the highest rate since 2019. Deportation orders for these children have also surged, reaching over 7,300 in July, up from 3,500 in May and 2,000 in January 2025.
The spike in unrepresented minors corresponds with a contract impasse between the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and the Acacia Center for Justice, a nonprofit that held a $200 million contract to provide legal aid to migrant children until July. ORR declined to renew the contract, citing concerns over Acacia’s refusal to share data needed to verify legal services. Acacia and its network of nearly 100 subcontractors countered that the requested information was protected attorney-client material and accused the government of unjustly cutting off funding.
This disagreement has complicated efforts to provide consistent legal support amid expedited immigration proceedings. Child advocates warn that many minors are left to navigate complex cases alone, increasing the risk of deportation to dangerous conditions. Some judges have reportedly faced pressure to accelerate removals, contributing to longer detention periods and a streamlined process that leaves little time for children to find counsel.
In response, the ORR awarded a follow-on contract in August to Our Rescue, an anti-trafficking organization with limited immigration court experience, but this contract was temporarily blocked following a protest by Acacia. Meanwhile, the U.S. Committee for Refugees and Immigrants (U.S.C.R.I.) has stepped in to provide legal services through December, though as of mid-September, its lawyers had formally represented only a small fraction of children in court. In most cases, U.S.C.R.I. lawyers serve as neutral advisers, informing children of their rights but not acting as formal counsel.
The issue reflects longstanding challenges in balancing child protection and immigration enforcement. Although unaccompanied minors do not have a statutory right to court-appointed lawyers, a 2008 law mandates that ORR ensure legal representation “to the greatest extent practicable” to guard against trafficking and exploitation. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have grappled with how to address the surge of unaccompanied minors, many fleeing violence and poverty in Central America.
Former ORR director Robert Carey, who served under the Obama administration, described recent developments as a “systematic dismantling” of protections ensuring that minors receive a fair hearing. “Not every child deserves asylum, but every child deserves to be heard,” he said, noting that the separation between enforcement and child welfare has eroded significantly in recent years.
Health and Human Services officials maintain that claims about unaccompanied minors being left without legal support misrepresent ORR’s role and efforts. A department spokeswoman emphasized ongoing work to reunite children safely with their families while managing legal services.
As contract disputes continue, thousands of unaccompanied minors face an uncertain legal landscape, underscoring deep tensions within U.S. immigration policy regarding the treatment of some of its most vulnerable arrivals.