Nonprofit Coalition Sues DHS Over Withheld Immigration Enforcement Records

A coalition of nonprofit organizations is pressing a multi-front legal campaign against the Department of Homeland Security in 2025, challenging a sweeping funding freeze, the suspension of green card processing for asylees and refugees, curtailed oversight of immigration complaints, and secrecy around “mass influx” border declarations. As of August 15, 2025, the cases span several federal courts and directly affect services and benefits relied upon by immigrant families across the United States 🇺🇸.

The first lawsuit targets DHS’s halt of funding to organizations that serve noncitizens, including lawful permanent residents and asylum seekers. Filed on March 17, 2025, by a civil rights coalition represented by Democracy Forward, the suit seeks to block the freeze that DHS Secretary Kristi Noem imposed on January 28, 2025.

Plaintiffs say the freeze shut off support for citizenship classes and legal help, triggering layoffs, canceled programs, and denials of assistance for thousands seeking naturalization help. A federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a request for a temporary restraining order, leaving the freeze in place. The coalition filed an amended complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction on April 25, 2025, asking the court to stop the freeze while the case proceeds.

Community providers describe the freeze as a shock that forced them to turn people away, even those who had already enrolled in citizenship preparation or scheduled help with government forms. While the litigation moves forward, many groups report they have reduced hours or shuttered programs, leaving families without trusted guidance in a year already marked by policy whiplash.

Records fight over paused green card processing

A second lawsuit aims to force DHS and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to release documents about a separate policy change. On June 24, 2025, the American Immigration Council and the American Immigration Lawyers Association filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after DHS and USCIS did not produce requested records about the March 25, 2025 suspension of green card processing for asylees and refugees.

According to the complaint, the agencies have not explained how long the pause will last or what extra vetting they are applying. The policy affects tens of thousands of people who have already cleared security checks and are waiting on permanent residency decisions.

The groups seek clarity on how the suspension was decided and communicated. They argue that without transparency, affected applicants face open-ended delays and uncertainty in their path to stability. The suit asks the court to order production of core documents, including:

• Agency communications about the suspension
• Guidance to USCIS personnel
• Instructions detailing new vetting procedures

Advocates say the absence of clear timelines leaves families stalled and creates ripple effects for employers and communities. While the case is about records, it also raises broader questions about the legal basis for the policy and whether DHS followed required procedures before changing how benefits are processed.

Oversight rollbacks and “mass influx” declarations

A third case, filed on April 24, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges DHS’s abolition of three oversight entities that handled complaints tied to immigration enforcement. Three nonprofit organizations allege violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and ask the court to restore complaint channels they describe as essential for accountability.

As of late July, the case remained active, with plaintiffs arguing that removing these checks makes it harder for people to report abuses or resolve issues when enforcement goes wrong.

A fourth lawsuit seeks records about Secretary Kristi Noem’s unprecedented “mass influx” declarations at the southern border in January and March 2025. Filed on May 22, 2025, by the American Immigration Council on behalf of Documented, the suit names DHS, Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The suit requests documents explaining:

• The basis for the declarations
• The delegation of authority to CBP
• Agreements with state and local agencies (including the Texas National Guard and Nassau County)

The declarations allowed deputizing state and local law enforcement for immigration enforcement, a novel approach that critics say blurs lines between local policing and federal authority. Plaintiffs argue the public needs to see the legal and operational groundwork for these steps.

Related Supreme Court decision and immediate impacts

These cases unfold alongside a Supreme Court development that reshaped another corner of the immigration system. On May 30, 2025, the Court lifted a preliminary injunction, allowing DHS to proceed with ending parole programs for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans and to revoke related work permits. That decision affects thousands of parolees whose temporary status and employment authorization were tied to the now-terminated programs.

For service providers, the funding freeze sits at the center of an immediate crisis. Groups that relied on DHS grants to run citizenship education, help with applications, and connect newcomers to trusted legal help say they have no cushion to replace lost funds.

The result, they report, is a wave of:

• Staff cuts
• Program closures
• Reduced hours and capacity—especially in smaller communities

In immigrant households, the practical fallout looks like missed deadlines, stalled family reunification plans, and lost chances to move from temporary to more secure status.

For asylees and refugees caught in the green card pause, the worries are different but just as real. People who believed they were nearing the end of a long road now face silence on timing and process. Without clear explanations, families can’t plan, and employers can’t foresee staffing needs.

Note: the green card lawsuit does not ask the court to restart processing; it asks for records that shed light on how DHS decided to pause and what steps officers must follow under new vetting rules.

DHS response and transparency concerns

The Department of Homeland Security has not publicly released the requested documents in the records suits. Plaintiffs argue that withholding them prevents meaningful public review of major policy changes.

DHS, for its part, defends its authority to manage benefits and enforcement, but specific agency positions in these cases will play out in court filings and hearings over the coming months.

Advocates say the combined effect of these moves is fewer guardrails and less help for people who are trying to follow the rules. According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the legal pressure is likely to continue until courts clarify what DHS can freeze, pause, or delegate without formal rulemaking or public notice.

Important: People seeking reliable updates can watch the official USCIS litigation and settlement notices at https://www.uscis.gov/litigation, where agency postings track class actions and related changes to processing.

That page won’t resolve the pending FOIA disputes or the funding freeze, but it can show when court orders trigger new guidance or timelines that affect benefits.

What’s at stake — next steps in court

What happens next will depend on federal judges in Maryland and the District of Columbia.

1. Maryland court:
   • Will weigh whether to grant a preliminary injunction to halt the funding freeze while the merits are argued.
2. D.C. courts:
   • Will decide whether DHS, USCIS, CBP, and ICE must release the requested records about the green card suspension and the “mass influx” declarations.

If the courts side with the plaintiffs on transparency, the documents could reveal who proposed the changes, what risks were cited, and what safeguards—if any—are in place for people caught in the shifts.

For now, immigrant families, legal service providers, and local communities are left with partial answers. The lawsuits aim to fill those gaps by forcing disclosures and, in one case, by restoring oversight bodies that used to handle complaints about enforcement.

Stakes: When records stay secret and funding stops without warning, real people lose help they counted on, and trust in public systems erodes.

DHS maintains broad authority over immigration policy and enforcement; the courts will now decide how far that authority stretches when transparency and access to services are on the line.