The Head Start lawsuit is a federal case filed in April 2025 by state Head Start associations and parent advocacy groups accusing the Trump administration of illegally dismantling the federally funded early childhood program. A federal judge in Washington state has since issued two preliminary injunctions blocking key administration actions, and the government has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Who Sued and Where
The case is Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Education and Assistance Program v. Kennedy, filed April 28, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington and assigned case number 2:25-cv-00781.1Court Listener. Washington State Association of Head Start and Early Childhood Education v. Kennedy Six organizations are plaintiffs: the Head Start associations of Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, plus Family Forward Oregon and Parent Voices Oakland.2Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Washington State Association of Head Start v. Kennedy They are represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Washington, the ACLU of Illinois, and the Impact Fund.3ACLU of Washington. Plaintiffs in Head Start Lawsuit File Motion to Amend Complaint Senior U.S. District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez was assigned to the case.
Head Start, authorized under the Head Start Act, provides early education, health, nutrition, and family support services to low-income children from birth to age five. It serves roughly 750,000 children through more than 1,600 grant recipients operating over 17,000 centers nationwide,4NPR. Head Start Government Shutdown and Congress appropriated $11.5 billion for it in fiscal year 2023.5K-12 Dive. Child Care Head Start Budget Workforce Cuts HHS
What the Lawsuit Alleges
The complaint charges that the administration pursued a deliberate campaign to dismantle Head Start in violation of the Head Start Act, the Constitution’s Spending Clause and separation of powers principles, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the First Amendment.6ACLU. Head Start Complaint The plaintiffs point to a set of specific federal actions taken in early 2025.
The first is funding withholding. By mid-April 2025, HHS had distributed roughly $1 billion less in Head Start grants than in the same period a year earlier, a decline of about 37 percent.7Office of Senator Patty Murray. Trump Admin Withholding Nearly $1 Billion in Funding for Head Start An April 10, 2025 Office of Management and Budget memo stated that the President’s budget did not fund Head Start and instructed HHS to use remaining funds only to “close out the program.”6ACLU. Head Start Complaint
The second is a set of restrictions targeting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility activities. Executive orders issued on January 20, 2025 banned DEI initiatives across the federal government. On March 14, HHS sent a letter threatening funding consequences for Head Start agencies that “promote” or “take part” in DEI activities, and on April 16 grantees were required to certify they would not promote DEIA, with penalties including funding clawbacks and potential False Claims Act liability.6ACLU. Head Start Complaint HHS also provided grantees with a list of nearly 200 words and phrases they were discouraged from using in grant applications, including “race,” “women,” “Black,” “Native American,” “disability,” “belonging,” “pregnant people,” “socioeconomic,” and “Tribal.”8CT Mirror. HHS Bars Head Start Providers From Using Women and Race in Grant Applications Providers said the requirements collided with the Head Start Act’s own demographic reporting requirements, and some of the banned terms were pre-populated on official grant forms.9The 74 Million. Head Start Providers Happy but Cautious After Federal Judge Halts DEI Ban A program on a Native American reservation reported being told it could no longer prioritize tribal members for enrollment despite the Act expressly permitting that.
The third is the shutdown of federal infrastructure supporting the program. On April 1, 2025, the administration closed five of the ten Office of Head Start regional offices, in Boston, New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle, and laid off all their staff. Those offices had served 22 states and five U.S. territories, covering roughly 800 grantees and about 318,000 funded child slots.10Center for American Progress. Closures of Head Start Regional Offices Jeopardize Critical Services for Children and Families More than 500 civil servants were fired across the Administration for Children and Families, cutting ACF staffing by 35 to 40 percent in roughly three months.11U.S. Senate Finance Committee. ACF Reduction in Force Letter
In July 2025, the plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to challenge a fourth action: a July 14, 2025 HHS directive reinterpreting the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act to classify Head Start as a “federal public benefit,” which would make many immigrant children ineligible for the program for the first time in its history. The directive was declared effective immediately, without a notice-and-comment period.12ACLU. Plaintiffs in Head Start Lawsuit File Motion to Amend Complaint to Challenge New HHS Rule Targeting Immigrant Families The plaintiffs argued that in the nearly 30 years since PRWORA passed, Head Start had never been treated as a “federal public benefit,” and that HHS also violated the APA by skipping notice-and-comment.13Courthouse News Service. Judge Bars Feds From Restricting Head Start Benefits to US Citizens
How the Court Has Ruled So Far
Judge Martinez has issued two preliminary injunctions against the administration.
September 11, 2025: Immigration Directive Blocked
The first injunction blocked the HHS directive restricting Head Start eligibility based on immigration status. The court found that HHS lacked the legal authority to impose the restriction and rejected the government’s position that the directive was merely an interpretive rule. The order barred implementation or enforcement against any Head Start agencies, providers, or participating families.14ACLU. Federal Court Halts Trump Administration’s Unlawful Attacks on Head Start Families
January 6, 2026: DEI Ban, Office Closures, and Layoffs Blocked
The second injunction blocked three further administration actions: the ban on DEIA activities within Head Start programs, the closure of Office of Head Start regional offices, and the mass layoffs. The court found that the anti-DEI requirements put providers “in an impossible situation” by demanding compliance with DEI prohibitions while still requiring them to fulfill their statutory mandate to serve historically underserved populations.15K-12 Dive. Federal Judge Halts HHS Efforts Against Head Start The Head Start Act, the court reasoned, requires local programs to serve their entire communities, including culturally and linguistically appropriate services, disability-related services, and language access, and the administration could not override those mandates by executive edict.16ACLU of Washington. Federal Judge Grants Second Preliminary Injunction Blocking Attacks on Head Start The injunction halted enforcement of the DEI ban and blocked further layoffs at the Office of Head Start, but it did not reverse layoffs that had already occurred.9The 74 Million. Head Start Providers Happy but Cautious After Federal Judge Halts DEI Ban
What the Government Has Argued
In a June 2025 brief opposing the preliminary injunction, the defendants described the challenged actions as a “consolidation and streamlining of agency functions” designed to “reduce redundancy” without impacting critical services. On standing, the government argued the plaintiffs’ claimed harms were “too speculative” and remained in the “pre-enforcement stage.” It also argued that challenges to HHS employment decisions belonged under the Civil Service Reform Act rather than in district court, and that the plaintiffs otherwise failed to state a claim.2Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Washington State Association of Head Start v. Kennedy
On the immigration directive, Justice Department attorney Michael Velchik argued at a July hearing that the PRWORA reinterpretation was an “interpretative rule” rather than final agency action, and so did not require a notice-and-comment period.13Courthouse News Service. Judge Bars Feds From Restricting Head Start Benefits to US Citizens
An Independent Finding on the Funding Freeze
Outside the courtroom, on July 23, 2025, the Government Accountability Office determined that the administration had illegally withheld Head Start funding in violation of the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The GAO found that the administration failed to submit the required message to Congress specifying which funds were being withheld and why, a prerequisite under the Act for any presidential deferral or rescission of appropriated funds.17NARFE. GAO Finds Trump Administration Violated Impoundment Control Act by Withholding Head Start Funds It was the third such GAO finding against the administration in 2025.18New York Times. Trump Head Start Government Accountability Office The GAO reported the funding disruption appeared to be resolved by June 2025.
The Appeal and What Comes Next
On November 6, 2025, the federal government filed a notice of appeal of the September preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.2Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Washington State Association of Head Start v. Kennedy The FY2026 appropriations package, passed in early 2026, included an $85 million increase for Head Start, which the National Head Start Association welcomed while calling it insufficient for the program’s needs.19Head Start Virginia. NHSA Statement on Level Funding for Head Start
Providers have responded to the court victories with cautious relief. Many remain reluctant to reintroduce previously banned language into their grant applications, worried about retaliation if the injunctions are reversed on appeal.9The 74 Million. Head Start Providers Happy but Cautious After Federal Judge Halts DEI Ban