A federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction against a Trump administration policy that would have stopped children living in the U.S. without legal status from enrolling in the federal preschool program Head Start, as the Associated Press reports.

The ruling, handed down in Washington state, expands an earlier block secured by Democrat attorneys general in their own states, ensuring the directive is suspended across the country.

The policy originated from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and sought to redefine eligibility rules for federal benefits. Under the change, children of undocumented immigrants would have been denied access to Head Start, which has long provided education and family support to low-income communities.

Policy challenged in court

Several Head Start associations, along with state officials, brought lawsuits to challenge the directive. They argued that the rule conflicted with long-standing interpretations of federal benefit eligibility and threatened to displace thousands of children from classrooms.

Judge Ricardo Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington granted the preliminary injunction. He noted that the directive posed significant risks for working families who rely on Head Start for childcare support and stability.

“It also results in parents losing childcare, risking missed work, unemployment, forced dropouts, and inability to pay life expenses and support families,” Martinez wrote in his order. His decision effectively halts the Trump administration’s plan before it could be fully implemented.

Enrollment, eligibility concerns emerge

According to filings in the case, more than 100,000 children could have been pushed out of Head Start programs if the eligibility changes had gone into effect. Advocates stressed that the move would have disproportionately impacted immigrant families already facing economic insecurity.

Head Start, established under President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty in the 1960s, currently serves more than half a million children nationwide. The program has historically included children from immigrant households regardless of their parents’ immigration status.

Critics also raised alarms that the sudden implementation created confusion for local providers. Ming-Qi Chu, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized that the shift “happened very abruptly with no transition plan in place.”

Administration defends directive

The Trump administration defended the change as part of a broader strategy to restrict access to social services for people in the U.S. illegally. Supporters, including political figure Robert F. Kennedy Jr., argued the eligibility revisions could serve as a deterrent to unlawful immigration.

Currently, undocumented immigrants are generally not eligible for federal public benefits, but Head Start has been an exception due to its focus on early childhood education. The administration’s proposal sought to align the program with stricter benefit rules.

An HHS spokesperson, Andrew Nixon, responded to the ruling by saying, “The agency disagrees with the court’s decisions and is evaluating next steps.” This indicates the administration may consider an appeal or revised regulatory action.

Potential impact on families, providers outlined

Providers warned that new screening requirements could lower enrollment by creating trust issues among immigrant families. Parents feared their personal information might be used against them, discouraging participation even if children remained eligible.

Beyond the direct effect on children, advocates said the rule would have strained working parents who depend on childcare to keep jobs and pursue education. Without access, families could have faced financial instability and even job loss.

The judge noted that these broader social and economic consequences played a significant role in his decision to block the rule nationwide.

Ongoing instability for program

This dispute comes amid a period of instability for Head Start programs. In addition to the legal fight, recent years have seen federal grant freezes and temporary closures at the start of Trump’s second term, leaving providers uncertain about long-term funding.

For immigrant families, the legal ruling provides temporary relief, allowing their children to remain enrolled while litigation continues. For Head Start providers, it restores clarity after months of uncertainty.

As the case progresses, the question of whether the administration can redefine access to early education programs will remain a contentious issue, with potentially far-reaching implications for immigration policy and childhood development nationwide.