In yet another blow to President Trump’s immigration reform agenda, a Biden-appointed federal judge has issued a nationwide injunction blocking the administration from ending taxpayer-funded legal representation for unaccompanied illegal alien children.

Judge Araceli Martinez Olguin, who was born in Mexico City and now serves on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, ruled this week that the Trump administration cannot halt the controversial program that provides attorneys at no cost to tens of thousands of Unaccompanied Alien Children (UACs) facing deportation.

The decision is the latest example of activist judges stepping in to preserve Biden-era policies—often with glaring conflicts of interest. In this case, Judge Olguin previously worked as a managing attorney for one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit: Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. That group is one of the main legal aid organizations pushing to keep the migrant lawyer program in place.

The Trump administration had petitioned the court to remove Olguin from the case, citing the clear “appearance of bias” stemming from her prior affiliation. But Olguin declined to recuse herself and instead doubled down, issuing a ruling that essentially forces American taxpayers to continue funding legal defense for foreign nationals who entered the country illegally.

According to Breitbart’s John Binder, the program has cost taxpayers billions over the years and currently serves over 25,000 unaccompanied minors. Each year, Congress quietly re-approves the spending—despite mounting evidence of system abuse and increasing pressure from border security advocates to eliminate the taxpayer burden.

Olguin initially issued a temporary hold on Trump’s order in early April. At the time, she argued that halting the program would harm “efficiency and fairness” in immigration courts. Her latest decision cements that halt as a nationwide injunction, barring the administration from cutting the program at all.

“Continued funding of legal representation for unaccompanied children promotes efficiency and fairness within the immigration system,” Olguin wrote.

Critics say that’s simply code for keeping the revolving door open for mass illegal immigration—and forcing Americans to pay for it.

“This is a stunning overreach by a partisan judge who never should have been allowed near this case,” said one former senior immigration official. “She worked for the plaintiffs. There is no universe where that doesn’t raise serious ethical concerns.”

President Trump’s legal team is reportedly preparing an appeal, arguing that Olguin’s prior relationship with the plaintiffs taints the decision and violates the principle of impartiality that federal judges are sworn to uphold.

The administration also emphasized that it is not denying due process to UACs—it simply opposes forcing taxpayers to provide private legal representation to foreign nationals at public expense.

The Department of Justice noted that immigration proceedings are civil, not criminal, meaning there is no constitutional requirement for taxpayer-provided counsel. In most civil cases, including family law and small claims, Americans must represent themselves or hire their own attorneys. But under the current arrangement, illegal minors are handed free lawyers the moment they step across the border.

Supporters of Trump’s reform argue this creates an incentive for smugglers and human traffickers to exploit the system, knowing that children sent alone are almost guaranteed legal protection and years of court delays.

“This is one of the biggest magnets for illegal immigration,” said Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar. “When you guarantee free lawyers to kids sent across the border, you’re just inviting more families to send their children here unaccompanied. It’s dangerous, it’s expensive, and it’s morally indefensible.”

Homan said the administration remains committed to overturning the decision and removing what he called “a judicial shield for an open-borders agenda.”

With the ruling now in place, the fight will likely head to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. If upheld there, the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court.

Until then, the Trump administration’s hands remain tied—and the American taxpayer remains on the hook.