A Texas law firm with connections to the Trump administration has declined a proposed federal contract worth $150 million to provide legal representation to migrant children who entered the United States without their parents, leaving further uncertainty over how thousands of children facing deportation proceedings will receive legal assistance.
The Burke Law Group, a Houston-based firm with limited experience in immigration law, was identified by the Trump administration last week as a potential recipient of the contract. However, the federal Office of Refugee Resettlement said Wednesday that the firm ultimately decided not to apply for the funding and was therefore never awarded the contract.
“Burke Law Group has declined to apply and has not been awarded any grant,” the agency said in a statement.
The firm said in a brief social media statement that it had considered seeking only a portion of the proposed contract but did not explain its decision to withdraw.
The proposed arrangement emerged after the administration allowed a major legal-services agreement with nearly 100 providers to expire. The contract, previously administered through the Acacia Center for Justice, provided legal representation to unaccompanied migrant children in government custody and to other children involved in immigration proceedings.
The change has raised concerns among lawyers and child-advocacy organisations about whether children will experience interruptions in legal representation at a time when the Trump administration is pursuing a broader programme of immigration enforcement and deportation.
Burke Law Group has several links to the Trump administration.
Its founder, Marcella Burke, previously worked as a lawyer in the first Trump administration, serving at both the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior.
The firm’s roster has also included Justin Shubow, a Trump appointee to the US Commission of Fine Arts and a supporter of the former president’s campaign to promote traditional and classical architectural styles in federal buildings.
Conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro is also listed as senior counsel.
The firm’s decision to decline the proposed contract came as the administration moved to shift responsibility for representing migrant children to other organisations.
Another organisation, Our Rescue, has received a federal contract valued at up to $244 million to provide services advocating for migrant children.
The Utah-based organisation focuses on combating child trafficking and became widely known under its former name, Operation Underground Railroad, including through the 2023 film “Sound of Freedom.”
Its founder, Tim Ballard, stepped down from the organisation in 2023 after women accused him in lawsuits of misconduct and exploiting his position within the anti-trafficking organisation. Ballard has denied wrongdoing.
Our Rescue’s current chief executive, Derek Benner, welcomed the federal assignment and said the organisation was prepared to work on behalf of children involved in the immigration system.
Benner previously held a senior position at US Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The federal government has a legal obligation to provide certain protections to unaccompanied migrant children who enter the United States without their parents or legal guardians.
Among those protections is the requirement under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 that children facing deportation proceedings have access to legal representation.
The need for attorneys is substantial.
Legal service providers whose government contract expired said approximately 1,800 children were living in shelters, while another roughly 22,000 children facing deportation were living with sponsors outside government facilities, including relatives.
The administration had identified Burke Law Group as one of two organisations that could help address the gap created by the termination of the previous contract.
The other organisation, the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants, received a temporary agreement worth approximately $20 million covering services through the end of the year.
USCRI attorneys began appearing in immigration courts last week, but the transition has been complicated.
Some lawyers reportedly appeared in court without prior meetings with the children they were expected to represent. The situation created confusion among judges, children and attorneys who had previously represented the minors under the expired government agreement.
The disruption has become part of a broader legal dispute between the federal government and organisations that previously provided representation to migrant children.
Several legal aid providers sued the administration after saying they had gone without payment for months.
On August 6, a federal judge in California ordered the government to pay the organisations for the services they had provided.
The providers have argued that the government’s replacement arrangements are insufficient to satisfy the court’s requirements and cannot immediately substitute for lawyers who already have established relationships with the children.
Caelin Moriarity Miltko, an attorney representing the legal service providers, told the court that lawyers have continuing ethical responsibilities to the children they currently represent.
She argued that those responsibilities cannot simply be transferred to a new organisation immediately because the government has changed the contracts governing legal representation.
The dispute highlights the difficulties involved in changing legal representation for children who may already have ongoing deportation cases.
Unlike adults in immigration proceedings, unaccompanied migrant children are subject to specific statutory protections because of their age and vulnerability.
Legal representatives can play a critical role in helping children understand immigration proceedings, identify potential forms of relief and communicate with government agencies and immigration courts.
The uncertainty comes as the Trump administration seeks to accelerate deportations and expand immigration enforcement across the United States.
For children who may already be living with relatives or other sponsors outside federal shelters, the availability of a lawyer can determine whether they are able to effectively present their case before an immigration judge.
Meanwhile, the Acacia Center for Justice confirmed that former legal service providers had begun receiving overdue payments from the government.
Bilal Askaryar, the organisation’s director of communications, said providers had received payments covering six of the nine months they were owed, with the remaining payments still being processed.
The developments leave the future of legal representation for thousands of migrant children uncertain.
The rejection of the proposed $150 million contract by Burke Law Group means the government will have to rely on alternative arrangements as it attempts to replace the network of legal organisations that previously represented children.
At the same time, the larger $244 million contract awarded to Our Rescue is likely to face scrutiny because of the organisation’s history and the background of its former leadership.
The situation has placed the federal government’s handling of migrant children’s legal rights under renewed attention, particularly as immigration enforcement expands and more children face the possibility of deportation.