Trump Administration Seeks to Repeal Flores Decree Governing Unaccompanied Minors’ Detention

In a recent legal maneuver, the Trump administration has initiated a federal court motion aimed at dismantling the ‘Flores Consent Decree,’ which has dictated the detention and release protocols for migrant children since 1997. Attorney General Pam Bondi argues that the decree has inadvertently encouraged illegal immigration along the southern U.S. border.

The motion, submitted in Los Angeles, is a joint effort by the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security. It requests that a federal judge in southern California put an end to the longstanding decree.

Upcoming Hearing

The pivotal hearing regarding the motion is set for July 18, where U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee will preside. Judge Gee has overseen this case for several years, and observers believe that she may be reluctant to terminate the Flores decree. This could lead to a potential escalation involving the federal appeals court, and possibly the Supreme Court.

Attorney General’s Statement

In her statement to the media, Attorney General Bondi emphasized the outdated nature of the decree. She stated, “The outdated Flores consent decree was implemented as a stopgap measure almost 30 years ago but in recent years has directly incentivized illegal immigration at our southern border. Congress and various federal agencies have already resolved the issues that Flores was meant to address, and this decree is now an unacceptable limitation on our America-first immigration agenda.”

Judicial Oversight Critiqued

Officials within the DOJ have indicated their intention to restore decision-making authority to elected representatives in Washington D.C., rather than having a single federal judge in California holding significant sway over immigration policy.

The legal filing articulates the government’s argument, asserting, “We are moving to completely terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement and to dissolve the Court’s injunction regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s regulations for apprehending, processing, caring for, and maintaining custody of unaccompanied minors. After 40 years of litigation and 28 years of judicial oversight, it is time for this case to conclude.”

Significant Changes in Immigration Policy

The DOJ’s filing also notes that substantial changes have occurred since the introduction of the Flores decree nearly three decades ago. These include new regulations that take into account the original goals of the Flores Settlement Agreement, as well as Supreme Court precedents that challenge the need for such a prolonged decree.

The move to dismantle the decree has drawn attention, as the Flores Settlement Agreement has governed the handling of unaccompanied alien children for years. Originally enacted as a consent decree in 1997 and later amended in December 2001, it has evolved with the changing landscape of U.S. immigration law.

Decree’s Legacy

Despite numerous legislative efforts by Congress and regulatory changes implemented by various agencies, the Flores decree has remained the guiding standard for the treatment of unaccompanied children crossing the U.S. border. Notably, its conditions also expanded in 2015 to include accompanied minors, a decision made in the 2016 Flores v. Lynch ruling.

This led to an unusual circumstance where immigration policy for children has been predominantly shaped by a district court ruling rather than action from Congress or the executive branch. The DOJ contends that such an arrangement is no longer tenable or appropriate.

Impact of Changing Demographics

In its filing, the DOJ highlighted how demographic shifts and surges in migrant populations have significantly transformed the situation at the U.S. border. It noted an increase in the number of individuals surrendering to Border Patrol—a process often orchestrated by traffickers—as well as a rise in the number of children arriving from outside the Western Hemisphere.

The COVID-19 pandemic further complicated immigration policies, as the government utilized expulsion measures for public health reasons. The subsequent lifting of those policies has resulted in considerable upheaval in immigration practices over the past two years.

Calls for Policy Reform

The DOJ maintains that the Executive Branch’s capacity to respond effectively to these changing circumstances has been severely constrained by the inflexible nature of the Flores decree. Efforts from past administrations to extricate themselves from the limitations imposed by this consent decree have been largely unsuccessful. The detention of juvenile aliens continues to be governed by a policy framework established more than two decades ago.

As the situation develops, the legal community and policymakers will closely monitor the impending court hearing concerning the dissolution of the Flores Consent Decree. Should the court side with the Trump administration, it could lead to far-reaching implications for the future of U.S. immigration policy, particularly concerning unaccompanied minors.

Looking Ahead

With potential appeals looming on the horizon, this case will be pivotal. The outcome may not only set the tone for future immigration policies but could also redefine the role of federal courts in shaping such crucial aspects of national policy.