A Washington, D.C., federal judge Thursday refused to block a Trump administration policy requiring that previously approved custodians reapply to sponsor "unaccompanied" children while the minors are held in government facilities, finding that the plaintiffs have not established the government is likely acting contrary to law.

U.S. District Judge Carl J. Nichols' order denies the preliminary injunction request by the plaintiffs — kids who arrived in the U.S. without a guardian and released into the custody of sponsors, but have since been redetained awaiting their sponsors' reapproval — saying they have not shown that the Office of Refugee Resettlement's procedures likely run afoul of due process or that the reapplication policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act.

The children have "not shown at this stage that their due process rights are sufficiently threatened to warrant the 'extraordinary remedy' of a preliminary injunction," the judge determined.

The order notes that the ORR "appears to be faithfully following its obligations" under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, which requires it to make sure a custodian is able to provide for a child's physical and mental well-being, as well as the Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule, which directs the office to assess the nature of the potential sponsor's relationship with the child.

"Requiring updated application materials is consistent both with its statutory and regulatory obligations and with the government's interest in protecting the safety of these children, especially where a significant amount of time has elapsed between a sponsor's initial approval and an unaccompanied child's re-arrest," Judge Nichols said, adding that the ORR "surely has an interest" in making sure formerly approved sponsors have not since engaged in risky behavior.

While the plaintiffs believe their detentions have gone on longer than is warranted, the judge noted that "their concerns are not going unheard," as the ORR is currently processing their sponsors' applications and that some have already been granted, according to the order.

The proposed class of minors and their representatives filed the lawsuit in February, alleging the children have fallen into a procedural cycle stemming from the Trump administration's immigration crackdown.

Having already been held in an ORR facility upon their arrival while their sponsor, often a parent or close relative, applied to become their custodian, they were then released to the sponsor's care while they went to school and otherwise became a part of their communities.

But when they were swept up in the immigration crackdown for not having permanent legal status, the kids have said in declarations to the court, they were re-referred to ORR by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Out of public school and back in ORR facilities, they've then had to wait — often for months — for their previous sponsors to go back through an even tighter application process.

An attorney for the kids, Diane de Gramont from the National Center for Youth Law, nearly came to tears during a hearing last month for the preliminary injunction motion while recounting numerous stories of children being separated from their parents or family members.

In one instance, de Gramont said, an 8-year-old had been taken from his mother.

"The harm of an 8-year-old child being taken from his mother," de Gramont said, her voice shaking as she apologized for nearly coming to tears, "is clearly irreparable."

Meanwhile, U.S. Department of Justice attorney Joshua McCroskey told the court that the ORR was exploring ways to expedite the application process for parents after an initial background check. But plaintiffs have asked for a quick administrative hearing of some sort after re-referral from DHS to see if the minor can safely go back to his previous custodian.

McCroskey said that it was the government's responsibility to undertake a full review ensuring that the child would be placed in a suitable home.

In his order Thursday, Judge Nichols determined that the plaintiffs have not established that the ORR's policy is likely arbitrary and capricious under the APA, expressing doubt about their argument that the office has provided no justification for "'systematically disregarding its prior determinations that plaintiffs' release to their previously vetted and approved sponsors was in each child's best interests.'"

"ORR's process is not 'systemically disregarding' its prior determination regarding specific sponsors because ORR is not calling those prior determinations into question; that is, ORR is not concluding that those determinations were improperly reached at the time they were made," the judge said.

"Rather, by requiring each sponsor to submit up-to-date information, ORR is attempting to ensure that transferring custody to those sponsors now, in some cases years after the initial determination of suitability, would serve 'the best interest of the child' in the present," he said.

Turning to the issue of irreparable harm, Judge Nichols noted that family separation and prolonged detention "certainly qualify as irreparable injuries," but in this case, the plaintiffs can seek remediation without an injunction. The judge said their harms are "largely remediable through individual habeas relief."

Representatives for the parties did not immediately return requests for comment late Thursday.

The federal government is represented by Joshua M. McCroskey, Jesse A. Montes, Cara E. Alsterberg, Glenn M. Girdharry, Anthony P. Nicastro and Brett A. Shumate of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The minors are represented by Diane de Gramont and Mishan Wroe of the National Center for Youth Law and Anna Deffebach, Joel McElvain and Robin F. Thurston of Democracy Forward Foundation.

The case is Diego N. et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services et al., case number 1:26-cv-00577, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

--Additional reporting by Jared Foretek. Editing by Jay Jackson Jr.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.