Federal Judge Denies Trump Administration’s Request to End Child Protection Policy
A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to terminate a long-standing policy designed to safeguard immigrant children in federal custody. This decision came from U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles, following a recent hearing involving the federal government and legal representatives for immigrant minors.
Judge Gee expressed a sense of déjà vu, recalling past efforts by the federal government to discontinue the Flores Settlement Agreement back in 2019 during Trump’s first term. She reiterated these feelings in her ruling on Friday.
“There is nothing new under the sun regarding facts or laws. Therefore, the court can deny the defendant’s claim on that basis alone,” Judge Gee stated.
The government had argued that since the agreement’s inception in 1997, there have been significant advancements in custody standards and policies for immigrant children. Judge Gee acknowledged these improvements but maintained that it was pointless to suggest abandoning the agreement merely because of progress.
A lawyer for the federal government argued that recent legislation could allow for indefinite detention of families, but claimed that the existing agreement invalidates this potential. Tiberius Davis, one of the government’s attorneys, pointed out that the Flores Settlement Agreement complicates their efforts.
The Flores Agreement, named after a teenage plaintiff, emerged from years of litigation following allegations of abuse in the 1980s. It establishes guidelines for conditions in shelters, ensuring provisions like food, water, supervision, medical services, sanitation, and ventilation. It also limits the time U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can detain child immigrants to 72 hours, after which custody is transferred to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The Biden administration made some strides last year toward partially ending the agreement. Judge Gee noted that while particular types of facilities may receive exemptions, oversight remains vital for those with more complex needs.
Supporters of the agreement are concerned about ongoing detentions that exceed the established limits. Data revealed in court filings suggested that in May, CBP held 46 children for more than a week, with some detained for more than two weeks. Additionally, in earlier months, reports indicated that 213 children had been held longer than 72 hours, with some infants facing detentions surpassing 20 days.
The federal government is seeking to expand immigration detention capacity, including constructing new centers—one such facility in Florida has been dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz” amid allegations of constitutional rights violations. Judge Gee has yet to decide on requests from legal advocates seeking more independent monitoring of child care within CBP facilities. The existing agreement does allow for third-party inspections at certain areas, but evidence has surfaced indicating prolonged detentions that infringe on the terms of the contract.
