In a flurry of high-profile legal decisions this August, federal courts across the United States have delivered a series of rulings that are reshaping the landscape of immigration enforcement, data privacy, and the rights of detainees. At the heart of these cases are questions about the humane treatment of immigrants—both adults and children—as well as the appropriate use of sensitive personal data for immigration enforcement. The outcomes have prompted both celebration and consternation among advocates, officials, and communities nationwide.
On August 18, 2025, a federal judge in California issued a preliminary injunction halting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from sharing Medicaid enrollee data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for immigration enforcement purposes. According to Truthout, this move came after HHS, under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., directed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide ICE with access to a trove of enrollee information—including names, addresses, birth dates, ethnicities, and Social Security numbers—on a daily basis. The data-sharing agreement, which began in June 2025, marked a stark departure from a 12-year-old policy that prohibited the use of Medicaid data for immigration enforcement.
The decision to share Medicaid data alarmed many, particularly as Medicaid serves some 79 million Americans, including low-income adults, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people with disabilities. While individuals living in the country illegally are not eligible for federal Medicaid, seven states permit non-citizens to participate in their own state-funded programs, without federal reimbursement. When the data-sharing arrangement became public, a coalition of 20 state attorneys general filed suit, arguing that the practice violated the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and threatened the integrity of the Medicaid program.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a leading voice in the legal challenge, stated, "The move to use Medicaid data for immigration enforcement upended longstanding policy protections without notice or consideration for the consequences. As the president continues to overstep his authority in his inhumane anti-immigrant crusade, this is a clear reminder that he remains bound by the law." (Truthout)
Judge Vince Chhabria, presiding over the case in the Northern District of California, sided with the states. In his ruling, he emphasized, "Using CMS data for immigration enforcement threatens to significantly disrupt the operation of Medicaid—a program that Congress has deemed critical for the provision of health coverage to the nation’s most vulnerable residents." Chhabria noted that since 2013, ICE has had a well-publicized policy against using Medicaid data for enforcement activities, and CMS had long limited data use to health care administration. The injunction will remain in place until HHS and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) complete a reasoned decision-making process that complies with the Administrative Procedures Act, or until the litigation concludes.
Meanwhile, in New York City, another legal battle has spotlighted the treatment of immigrants detained at the federal courthouse at 26 Federal Plaza in Manhattan. On August 8, the American Civil Liberties Union, Make the Road New York, and the New York Civil Liberties Union filed suit against DHS and ICE, alleging that detainees were subjected to inhumane conditions. According to reporting by Truthout, detainees—including those who had arrived for mandatory court check-ins or hearings—were held for days in crowded cells designed for 12-hour stays. They lacked beds, showers, and even basic hygiene products such as toothbrushes, period products, medication, or a change of clothes. Many were denied access to their attorneys.
Initially, a federal judge granted a temporary restraining order requiring ICE to provide detainees with sleeping mats, toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap, towels, toilet paper, and feminine hygiene products, as well as access to legal counsel. However, just days later, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan revised his order after Manhattan U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton raised concerns that toothbrushes could be improvised as weapons. The judge ultimately allowed ICE to continue its ban on toothbrushes at 26 Federal Plaza, despite the fact that both ICE’s own 2025 National Detention Standards and common practice at other detention facilities require the provision of such basic hygiene items.
Advocates pushed back strongly, noting, "There is no basis to deny individuals detained at 26 Federal Plaza basic hygiene products that are customarily made available at other immigration detention facilities across the country," as cited by the plaintiffs in their court response. The impact on detainees has been profound. Geovani Maradiaga Ochoa, who was detained for six days at the facility in July 2025, described the ordeal: "I was losing my head in there. It was like being in hell." Ochoa recounted being arrested during a routine check-in, separated from his family, and held in a cell with 30-40 others, sleeping on the floor and using his shoes as a pillow. He was denied a shower or the ability to brush his teeth throughout his detention and was eventually deported, leaving behind his wife and children, all U.S. citizens, after living in the country for two decades.
As these cases unfolded, another pivotal federal ruling was handed down in California. On August 15, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee reaffirmed the government’s obligation to comply with the Flores Agreement of 1997, a landmark court settlement that sets standards for the humane treatment of children in immigration custody. The Flores Agreement mandates that children be held in the least restrictive settings, prioritized for release to family, and provided with clean water, food, medical care, and safe, sanitary living conditions.
Judge Gee’s ruling blocked the federal government from detaining children indefinitely in unlicensed, dangerous, or inhumane facilities, and was widely celebrated by advocates as a major victory for immigrant children’s rights. According to Border Report, Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, said, "The Court’s vindication of Flores is a victory that belongs to each and every immigrant child currently detained by our government. Children should be free and, barring that, they should be cared for in environments that respect their basic human rights and essential needs. So long as that is not the case, Flores provides an essential avenue for transparency and accountability."
Perez warned, however, that the Trump administration—whose policy efforts to terminate the Flores Agreement have repeatedly been rebuffed—was likely to appeal the decision, setting the stage for a potential Supreme Court showdown. "I expect the Trump administration will move to appeal this federal judge’s ruling and that appeal will wind its way through the courts and that eventually will be at the Supreme Court where this agreement will really be tested," he said.
Together, these three cases underscore the ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and the legal protections afforded to immigrants and vulnerable populations. They also highlight the vital role of the judiciary in upholding rights and setting boundaries for executive action, especially as debates over immigration policy, public health, and civil liberties continue to roil the nation. For now, the courts have drawn clear lines—protecting children in detention, halting the indiscriminate use of sensitive health data, and demanding at least a baseline of dignity for those held in federal custody.
