What legal rights do unaccompanied immigrant children have in U.S. immigration court?

1. What the law currently provides: custody, screening and routes through court

Federal law requires that unaccompanied children apprehended by DHS be transferred to ORR custody for care, placement with sponsors when appropriate, and that they proceed through immigration processes that determine removal or relief ^[1]. Some children—especially certain Mexican nationals—may be screened and returned without formal immigration court hearings, so not all unaccompanied minors appear before EOIR judges ^[8]. Academic analysis finds that unaccompanied minors make independent legal claims (not just dependents) and thus are directly subject to removal proceedings and eligibility for relief such as asylum ^[9].

2. The glaring gap: no right to appointed counsel in immigration court

Unlike criminal defendants, immigrants (including unaccompanied children) are not entitled under current immigration law to appointed counsel in removal proceedings; organizations and Congress have long noted that children “do not get appointed attorneys” and often face trained government attorneys alone ^{[2] [3]}. Multiple advocacy groups and data studies document that most unaccompanied children are unrepresented in immigration court, which dramatically reduces their chances of obtaining relief ^{[3] [9]}.

3. What happened in 2025: funding cuts, litigation and partial restorations

In early 2025 federal funding for a program that funded legal services for roughly 26,000 unaccompanied children was terminated, prompting lawsuits and emergency court orders to restore funding or block unlawful deportation practices; advocates argued the cuts left children facing judges without counsel ^{[6] [7] [5]}. Coverage from legal aid groups and local reporting shows that, after the funding disruption, attorneys and service providers said many children began appearing in court without representation, a change from prior years ^{[10] [6]}.

4. Policy responses and proposals: Congress and nonprofits pushing to guarantee counsel

Senators introduced the Fair Day in Court for Kids Act of 2025 to require HHS to provide counsel to unaccompanied children in DOJ, DHS, or state proceedings, extend representation through the full proceedings even if the child turns 18, and require notice to children about the right to counsel within 72 hours—reflecting a legislative push to change the status quo ^{[4] [11] [12]}. Advocates and bar groups have also proposed creating a children’s court within EOIR or other structures tailored to minors to ensure child‑appropriate explanations and guardianship‑style advocacy ^[2].

5. Why representation matters: data and outcomes

Scholars analyzing 2009–2023 data conclude that representation strongly affects outcomes and that unaccompanied children were more likely to be ordered deported under policy regimes that cut their access to lawyers; representation rates fell during recent administrations and remain a central factor in due‑process concerns ^[9]. Practitioners and NGOs report that the absence of counsel creates “massive disruptions” and “lack of meaningful due process” for vulnerable children ^{[5] [10]}.

6. Competing perspectives and legal limits

Advocates and many Democrats argue the government has an obligation to ensure counsel for children and have sought court relief and statutory mandates ^{[4] [7]}. The administration’s actions in 2025 to terminate contracts were defended by officials as policy or budget decisions in public statements not included in the provided sources; available sources do not include the administration’s legal justification or full response to these lawsuits and congressional proposals (not found in current reporting). Courts have at times intervened to block specific deportation plans affecting unaccompanied children, finding due‑process or statutory violations in certain instances ^[7].

7. Practical takeaways for children and sponsors now

Practically, unaccompanied children should expect ORR care and placement processes, and they may have access to nonprofit legal services where providers operate, but there is no universal right to a government‑provided immigration attorney in court absent new law or a court order; litigation and bills in 2025 aimed to change that and restored some funding through court action ^{[1] [6] [7]}. Local legal aid groups remain critical: organizations such as Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, NIJC and others provide services where possible and have led litigation to protect representation ^{[5] [6] [13]}.

Limitations: reporting and scholarly sources here document policy changes, lawsuits, and legislative proposals through 2025, but do not provide a comprehensive statement of current DOJ or DHS regulations or the administration’s full legal rationale; available sources do not mention the administration’s detailed defense in these matters (not found in current reporting).