The contracted services would include legal orientation, legal consultation, and attorney-of-record representation for eligible unaccompanied children as they proceed through USCIS proceedings during custody.

Observers warn the arrangement could weaken due process for vulnerable children amid aggressive deportation policies, and there is ongoing scrutiny of how legal representation is procured and delivered.

Requests for comment to HHS have gone unanswered, and Burke Law Group’s response to the single-source contract questions remains unavailable at publication.

Legal aid groups argue that the lack of competitive bidding and questions about the firm’s qualifications occur within a broader dispute over immigration enforcement and the funding of migrant-child legal services.

The contract in question was a single-source cooperative agreement, bypassing competitive bidding, raising concerns from legal aid groups about potential conflicts of interest and the firm’s immigration-law qualifications.

The initiative is set to begin August 15 and run for one year, with no bidding justification provided for circumventing the procurement rules.

The contract covers only children in government shelters—about 1,800—leaving roughly 22,000 migrant children living with sponsors outside shelters without this coverage.

Critics note that only a fraction of the firm’s lawyers have relevant immigration-law experience, and some personnel have corporate backgrounds or conservative ties; concerns are heightened by the founder’s past roles in the Trump administration.

Historically, nearly 100 legal aid providers handled unaccompanied children’s representation; that network recently ended, creating uncertainty about new arrangements and funding.

The HHS/ORR program for unaccompanied migrant children is under scrutiny amid broader tensions from the Trump era over how these children are tracked and represented, with concerns about data requests and alignment with immigration enforcement.

An HHS spokesperson said Acacia was offered a new contract that would include data-sharing and billing requirements, but Acacia reportedly declined, while ORR has pursued data requests that legal providers say are confidential and legally privileged.