In 1985, a federal district court entered an injunction to provide unaccompanied children in federal custody with basic procedural safeguards to prevent their unlawful removal from the United States. The district court recognized that due process requires children to be given the opportunity to make voluntary and informed decisions. Among other things, the injunction required the government to give children a form with court-approved language that describes the voluntary return process and to give children the opportunity to talk with a trusted adult before making a decision. 

Forty years later, in November 2025, the U.S. government suddenly sought to terminate the injunction, claiming that the protections for children were no longer needed. Without informing class counsel, advocates working with unaccompanied children, or the public, the government began giving children a new advisal of rights that contained coercive and misleading language. The plaintiffs asked the court to prohibit the government from using the new advisal. The district court denied the government’s request to terminate the injunction and blocked the government from using the new advisal, reasoning that children needed basic procedural safeguards to protect their rights. The government appealed. 

The Young Center and the law firm of Steptoe LLP filed an amicus (friend-of-the-court) brief in the appellate court in support of the class of plaintiff children and asking the court to affirm the district court’s decision. The brief incorporates information based on the experiences of the Young Center Child Advocates, social science research, and legal authorities to explain how children are uniquely vulnerable in the immigration system and process information differently such that the court needs to provide safeguards to ensure that children can make voluntary and knowing decisions about their safety and well-being.  

For a copy of the Young Center’s amicus brief, please email the Young Center’s litigation team at litigation.yc@theyoungcenter.org. 

More about the case can be found on the National Immigration Law Center’s website.