Foster-Care Plaintiffs Denied Preliminary Injunction for Lack of Imminent Harm

NASHVILLE (LN) — U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger denied the plaintiffs’ emergency motion for a preliminary injunction in Odeneal et al v. Quin et al, ruling that the 19 named plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they are at imminent risk of being placed in temporary housing that fails to meet their basic human needs.

The plaintiffs, represented by minors acting through next friends, sought to enjoin Margie Quin, Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services, and two deputy commissioners, from keeping the putative class of foster children in temporary housing.

The plaintiffs argued that any foster child in DCS custody is always at imminent risk of such a placement. Trauger rejected that argument, stating the plaintiffs “ask too much” and noting that finding imminent harm would require relying on a “chain of speculation.”

The court noted that to conclude a named plaintiff was at imminent risk, it would have to assume multiple contingencies: that a current placement would disrupt, that DCS could not identify a new long-term placement, and that no licensed facility was available.

“[A]ll these ‘ifs’ rule out the ‘certain and immediate’ harm needed for a preliminary injunction,” Trauger wrote, citing Sixth Circuit precedent from Sumner County Schools.

Trauger acknowledged that the plaintiffs presented “ample evidence that putative class members’ constitutional rights have been violated by the defendants’ past practices.”

However, she found the plaintiffs did not present evidence that the 19 named plaintiffs are at imminent risk of such a placement, nor that placement in temporary housing per se would necessarily violate their constitutional rights.

“The plaintiffs have not presented any evidence from which the court could conclude that any named plaintiff is at imminent risk that his or her current placement will disrupt,” Trauger wrote.

The court emphasized that past exposure to illegal conduct does not show a present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief if unaccompanied by continuing, present adverse effects.

The emergency motion for a preliminary injunction was denied without prejudice to the plaintiffs’ ability to return to court if their situation changes and they are able to establish the requisite risk of harm.

Trauger issued the order on May 18, following oral argument at a hearing conducted on April 17, 2026.