Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' (United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) et al) actions conflict with the legal requirements established by Congress to maintain Head Start programs across the country.

Plaintiffs state that on March 14, 2026, Defendants informed agencies that the Office of Head Start (OHS) would not approve the use of federal funding "for any training and technical assistance (TTA) or other program expenditures that promote or take part in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives." Two weeks later, HHS then closed half of its regional offices and laid off staff, which left Head Start agencies in 23 states without necessary support. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memorandum in April 2025 about the 2026 HHS budget, "which anticipated the elimination of Head Start in its entirety." Critically, Plaintiffs assert that on April 16, 2025, HHS imposed a new requirement for agencies to certify that they do not, and will not, operate programs that advance DEI in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws.

Plaintiffs argue that HHS' ban on DEI and accessibility is unlawful and sows confusion, as well as compromises the quality of Head Start Programming. Plaintiffs also assert that HHS' actions are inconsistent with the Head Start Act and Rehabilitation Act. Further, Plaintiffs press than Defendants' actions have caused, are causing, and will continue to cause irreparable harm to Plaintiffs and will result in the reduction, suspension, or termination of Head Start programs across the country.

On May 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to immediately postpone and stay the directive implementation and enforcement until their second amended complaint is resolved on the merits.

On July 21, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for temporary restraining order.

On September 5, 2025, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' second amended complaint. Defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to review Plaintiffs' claims in the pre-enforcement stage, where no actual harms have occurred over the six months since HHS has taken the challenged actions. Defendants assert that Plaintiffs' speculation about what may happen in the future does not constitute imminent or substantial injury. Further, Defendants argue that the court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate challenges to HHS' employment decisions under the Civil Service Reform Act; and that even if the court had jurisdiction, Plaintiffs fail to state a claim under the Administrative Procedures Act, or for a constitutional or ultra vires challenge to the agency actions.

On September 11, 2025, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. The court stated that are likely to succeed on their APA and Head Start Act procedural violation claims, country to law and in excess of statuary authority claims, arbitrary and capricious claim, and irreparable harm claims. Additionally, the court found that the balance of equities and public interest weighs in Plaintiffs' favor.

On November 6, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the preliminary injunction.

On December 15, 2025, Defendants withdrew their appeal of the preliminary injunction.

On February 3, 2026, Plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce the preliminary injunction.