Federal Government Appeals Preliminary Injunctions in PRWORA Litigation
As we noted in a post on July 14, on July 10, 2025, both the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced new legal interpretations expanding which federally funded education, health, and human services programs are treated as “federal public benefits.” In short, this means that recipients of services in programs ranging from adult education and postsecondary CTE to Head Start are now subject to new PRWORA-based immigration-status eligibility and verification requirements.
Two lawsuits were filed in response to this new rule:
State of New York, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al. (D.R.I., 1:25-cv-00499) is a multistate challenge to the July 2025 PRWORA reinterpretation that resulted first in a temporary stay in August 2025 and then a preliminary injunction on September 10, 2025, blocking the rule in all plaintiff states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia.
Washington State Association of Head Start and ECEAP, et al. v. Kennedy, et al. (W.D. Wash., 2:25-cv-00781) is a challenge focused on the reinterpretation’s application to Head Start specifically; a preliminary injunction was issued on September 11, 2025, that paused enforcement of the new rule for affected Head Start programs nationwide.
On November 6, the federal government filed an appeal of State of New York, et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al. in the First Circuit, and on November 7, the government filed an appeal of Washington State Association of Head Start and ECEAP, et al. v. Kennedy, et al. in the Ninth Circuit.
Key issues in both cases include whether the new rule:
should be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or whether it was properly classified as an interpretative rule (in which case it would not be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking);
is arbitrary and capricious under the APA;
violates the Spending Clause; and
is an improper interpretation of PRWORA.
The preliminary injunctions remain in place in both cases while the appeals are pending.