Law360 (May 5, 2026, 4:49 PM EDT) -- The Trump administration asked a D.C. federal judge to dismiss a suit challenging requirements for previously approved sponsors to reapply for custody of unaccompanied immigrant children, arguing the suit's claims are either moot or unfounded.

In a motion to dismiss filed on Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice said the Office of Refugee Resettlement has released three of the suit's four minor plaintiffs to the custody of a parent, providing the relief they sought and removing any stake they had in the case.

"Plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot once they were released from ORR custody, therefore, they must be dismissed because there is no longer controversy for which meaningful relief can be provided," the DOJ told the court.

The remaining minor plaintiff, and any other possible plaintiffs in the proposed class action, can't show the ORR violated their due process rights or the Administrative Procedure Act by enacting a policy that violates statutes and regulations directing it to promptly place unaccompanied immigrant minors in its care in the least restrictive setting in the best interest of the child, and to consider the suitability of potential sponsors to accept custody, according to the DOJ.

The suit, filed in February, claims that several immigrant minors previously released to sponsors such as parents and other relatives have been redetained by the Trump administration, with the ORR now forcing their previously approved sponsors to reapply and go through onerous new processes that many are unable to complete due to their immigration status.

The government's motion to dismiss comes after a judge recently denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.

In the motion, the DOJ defended the ORR's vetting of sponsors, including those who had been reviewed and approved, arguing the office has acted in line with requirements spelled out in the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act and an Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule to protect the immigrant minors.

"Neither due process nor the TVPRA requires release to a potential sponsor who cannot satisfy the vetting procedures that ORR has determined are necessary to fulfill its statutory obligations, protect children, and prevent crime," the DOJ told the court, asserting that the situations of sponsors who were previously reviewed and approved may well have changed.

According to the DOJ, the "policy" the plaintiffs have challenged is the ORR following its duty to review sponsors every time it is considering whether to release an immigrant minor to someone else's custody.

"Plaintiffs' case rests on the flawed assumption that time has stood still since the [unaccompanied immigrant children] were released to their previously vetted sponsors," it added. "However, ORR must take all current information into account, to include assessing previously vetted sponsors anew and even assessing circumstances of the re-referral" to the ORR.

According to the DOJ, the plaintiffs are unable to allege a plausible due process claim. That's partly because immigrant minors without lawful status held in nonsecure ORR group homes or foster care facilities lack a constitutional right to be released to the custody of a family member or previously approved sponsor, with the TVPRA leaving such placement decisions to the ORR.

"ORR's current vetting process already provides minors an opportunity to be released from ORR custody, provides sponsors the opportunity to prove their suitability, and allows close relatives to appeal the denials of their sponsor applications," the DOJ said.

The plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act claims also doesn't work, since they do not challenge a final agency action or show that the ORR has acted contrary to the law, according to the DOJ. It also asserted that the plaintiffs could seek their desired relief through individual habeas petitions.

"Although plaintiffs do not directly ask for release, they allege that their being in government custody is unlawful without additional procedural protections," the DOJ said. "Plaintiffs' claims are core habeas claims: They challenge the fact and length of ORR's custody when a previously approved sponsor is available to take custody, and the claims are more appropriately heard on a case-by-case basis."

A representative of the plaintiffs declined to comment Tuesday. The government did not respond to a request for comment.

The plaintiffs 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 government is represented by Brett A. Shumate, Anthony P. Nicastro, Joshua C. McCroskey, Jesse Montes and Cara E. Alsterberg of the DOJ's Civil Division.

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 Lauren Berg and Jared Foretek. Editing by Adam LoBelia.

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