Original Date AnnouncedAugust 23, 2019
DHS rule terminates and replaces the Flores Settlement Agreement, which governed the apprehension, processing, care, custody, and release of noncitizen juveniles. The rule distinguishes between accompanied and unaccompanied migrant children and provides less protection for accompanied children, to whom the maximum time allowed in detention for children does not apply. This rule was signed by Acting Secretary McAleenan and Secretary Azar.
[ID #431]Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children
Effective DateOctober 22, 2019
Subsequent Trump-Era Action(s)
September 27, 2019
Court Order Enjoining Flores
Flores regulation permanently enjoined on September 27, 2019. The opinion mandates that "Defendants shall continue to comply with the Flores Settlement Agreement until they publish final regulations in compliance with the Agreement." The government appealed.View Document
December 29, 2020
Flores v. Rosen, No. 19-56326 (9th Cir. 2020)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the decision of the district court enjoining the termination of the Flores Settlement Agreement ("Settlement").
With respect to HHS regulations, the Court held that the new regulations could take effect, with two exceptions. First, the new regulation entitling ORR to place an unaccompanied minor in a secure facility (e.g., a state or county juvenile detention facility) "whenever" it determines that the minor is "a danger to self or others" is inconsistent with the Settlement. A minor cannot be detained in a secure facility "absent a determination that the child poses a danger to self or others." Second, the new regulation providing that an unaccompanied minor is entitled to a bond hearing "only if they request one" is inconsistent, because the Settlement provides that a bond hearing will be held "unless . . . he or she refuses such a hearing."
On "[i]nitial apprehension and processing of both unaccompanied and accompanied minors," the new regulations are inconsistent with the Settlement in two respects: "(1) they limit the circumstances in which accompanied minors may be released, and (2) they provide for the detention of families together in facilities licensed not by states but by ICE itself." The Court held that provisions regarding DHS custodial care of unaccompanied minors and transfer to HHS were consistent with the Settlement.
The Court rejected the government's various arguments for the wholesale termination of the Flores Settlement.
**Litigation is listed for informational purposes and is not comprehensive. For the current status of legal challenges, check other sources.**View Document