Key Takeaways
* A federal judge recently rejected the Trump administration's second attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement, maintaining crucial protections for immigrant children .
* The 1997 Flores Agreement establishes minimum standards for treatment of immigrant children in custody, including limits on detention duration and requirements for adequate conditions .
* Government officials argue the agreement "incentivizes unlawful border crossings" by families with children, while advocates maintain it's essential for preventing indefinite detention in unsafe conditions .
* Despite court mandates, documentation reveals ongoing violations including prolonged detention in inadequate facilities with insufficient food, medical care, and sanitation .
* The ruling preserves judicial oversight mechanisms that allow independent monitors to access detention facilities and report on conditions .
The Flores Agreement: Historical Context and Core Protections
The Flores Settlement Agreement traces its origins back to 1985 litigation concerning the treatment of a 15-year-old Salvadoran girl named Jenny Flores who was detained by immigration authorities. She was held in a hotel surrounded by chain-link fencing and subjected to strip searches alongside other children in custody . This case exposed systemic issues in how the federal government handled immigrant children, culminating in the 1997 agreement that established nationwide standards for their treatment. The agreement wasn't created out of abstract policy debates but emerged from documented patterns of mistreatment that affected real children caught in the immigration system.
At its core, the Flores Agreement mandates that immigrant children must be held in the "least restrictive setting" appropriate for their age and needs . This legal framework requires the government to prioritize releasing children to family members or guardians whenever possible instead of keeping them in detention facilities. For those children who must remain in custody, the agreement establishes minimum standards for their care, including adequate food and drinking water, medical assistance, sanitation facilities, and supervision by trained staff . Perhaps most significantly, it limits how long children can be held in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facilities to no more than 72 hours before transfer to more appropriate settings .
The agreement also provides for ongoing judicial oversight through court-appointed monitors and lawyers who have access to detention facilities to verify compliance . This oversight mechanism has proven crucial multiple times when the government failed to meet its obligations. The Flores Agreement applies to all immigrant children in federal custody, whether they arrived alone or with family members . This comprehensive approach recognizes that all children deserve protection regardless of their immigration status or circumstances of arrival. These protections emerged from recognizing that detention, even for relatively short periods, can cause lasting developmental harm to children, with child psychologists warning that even two weeks in detention can have severe consequences that last a lifetime .
Recent Legal Challenges and Judicial Responses
The Trump administration initiated its most recent attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in May 2025, filing a formal motion arguing that the agreement had become "overly rigid and outdated" . Government attorneys contended that Congress had enacted legislation and federal agencies had developed standards that rendered the court supervision unnecessary . This argument represented a strategic approach to removing judicial oversight that had repeatedly identified violations and compelled improvements in detention conditions. The administration further claimed that the agreement actually incentivized unlawful immigration by encouraging families to bring children on dangerous journeys with the expectation of being released quickly into the United States .
In response to this motion, Flores counsel, a coalition of advocacy organizations including the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, National Center for Youth Law, and Children's Rights, filed a forceful opposition in June 2025 . They presented stark evidence that terminating the agreement would remove crucial safeguards for children's health and safety, potentially opening the door to indefinite detention in prison-like facilities. The counsel submitted recent declarations from detained children and parents describing brutal conditions, including overcrowding, unsanitary environments, and inadequate medical care . These firsthand accounts provided concrete examples of why continued judicial oversight remained necessary despite government claims of improved standards.
On August 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee issued a definitive ruling rejecting the administration's request to terminate the agreement . In her 20-page order, Judge Gee noted that the government had failed to identify "any meaningful change either in factual conditions or in law since their last motion to terminate" . This reference to the administration's unsuccessful 2019 attempt to end Flores protections highlighted the repetitive nature of the legal challenge. Judge Gee specifically found that neither the Department of Homeland Security nor the Department of Health and Human Services had demonstrated "sufficiently substantial compliance" with the agreement's requirements to justify terminating court oversight .
The ruling maintains the status quo of judicial supervision that has been in place since 1997, ensuring that independent monitors continue to have access to detention facilities where immigrant children are held . This decision represents a significant setback for the administration's immigration agenda, which has sought to expand detention capacity and increase deterrence through stricter enforcement. Legal experts anticipate that the Trump administration will appeal the decision, potentially setting the stage for the case to reach the U.S. Supreme Court . This ongoing legal battle reflects fundamental disagreements about how the United States should treat immigrant children and whether the executive branch can be trusted to monitor itself without independent oversight.
Documented Conditions in Detention Facilities
Recent documentation from various detention facilities reveals significant gaps between mandated standards and actual conditions experienced by immigrant children. Despite the Flores Agreement's requirements, reports consistently show problems with prolonged detention, inadequate accommodations, and insufficient access to basic necessities. In May 2025 alone, Customs and Border Protection held 46 children for over a week in violation of the 72-hour limit, including six children detained for more than two weeks and four children held for 19 days . During March and April of the same year, CBP reported 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours, including 14 toddlers and young children held for over 20 days in April .
Children and parents have provided heartbreaking firsthand accounts of conditions in detention facilities through declarations submitted to courts. A 13-year-old child detained in an ICE Family Detention Center described emotional deterioration: "I'm not really hungry that much any more. I eat less than before. I feel really sad and angry all the time. I don't want to die here. And I don't want to live here either" . Mothers reported being afraid to speak openly about conditions, with one noting: "Before coming into this interview, the Karnes staff who brought me told me not to say anything and to only answer basic things. They do not want people to know how they are treating us. I'm afraid for when the lawyers leave, because the staff will go back to treating us poorly again" .
Table: Documented Conditions in Immigration Detention Facilities
The physical and psychological toll on detained children appears substantial according to these reports. Lawyers visiting a family detention facility in Dilley, Texas described children experiencing nightmares, loss of appetite, and worsening health conditions . Toys were reportedly in short supply, with children described as "hungry, sleep-deprived, bored, and hopeless" . Mothers had to beg for diapers and watch their children lose weight and deteriorate from stress. These observations align with psychological research indicating that even brief detention can cause lasting developmental harm to children . The documented conditions stand in stark contrast to the Flores requirements for safe and sanitary facilities that meet children's basic needs.
Perspectives in the Flores Agreement Debate
The government's position on the Flores Agreement centers around claims that the settlement has created "perverse incentives" for family migration and undermines enforcement efforts. Justice Department attorney Tiberius Davis argued in court proceedings that the agreement "undermines deterrence" of illegal immigration by limiting how long children can be detained with their families . Administration officials point to legislation passed under Trump that provided billions of dollars for new immigration facilities, arguing that these modern facilities would provide appropriate conditions even for extended detention periods . They contend that Flores restrictions prevent them from fully utilizing this expanded detention capacity to implement their enforcement priorities.
Human rights advocates and legal representatives for immigrant children maintain a very different perspective. They argue that the Flores Agreement remains essential precisely because the government has demonstrated repeated failures to meet basic standards of care without judicial oversight . Sergio Perez, Executive Director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, characterizes the administration's efforts as "another lawless step towards sacrificing accountability and human decency in favor of a political agenda that demonizes refugees" . Rather than seeing the agreement as an unnecessary burden, advocates view it as a crucial safeguard against potentially abusive practices.
Key Arguments in the Flores Debate
* Government Perspective: Flores protections incentivize families to bring children on dangerous journeys
* Advocate Perspective: Children seeking refuge deserve protection, not imprisonment
* Government Perspective: Congressional legislation and agency standards make court oversight redundant
* Advocate Perspective: Internal policies cannot replace enforceable court standards
* Government Perspective: Expanded detention capacity requires flexibility for effective enforcement
* Advocate Perspective: Without Flores, children face indefinite detention in unsafe conditions
The judicial perspective represented by Judge Gee's ruling emphasizes continuity of standards and lack of demonstrated improvement. In her decision, Judge Gee noted the irony that government attorneys pointed to improvements in conditions as evidence the agreement was no longer needed, while these improvements actually demonstrated that "the FSA is serving its intended purpose" . She characterized the argument that Flores should be abandoned because some progress had been made as "nonsensical" . This judicial viewpoint maintains that until the government consistently meets the agreement's standards without court supervision, the oversight mechanism remains necessary to protect children's welfare.
Implementation and Oversight Mechanisms
The operational structure of the Flores Agreement's oversight involves multiple components working in concert to monitor compliance. Court-appointed monitors and designated lawyers have authority to conduct regular inspections of facilities where immigrant children are detained . These inspections include both announced and unannounced visits to border patrol stations, family detention centers, and other holding facilities. During these visits, monitors document conditions through photographs, measurements, and interviews with detained children and staff. This access provides an independent verification mechanism that complements internal government oversight systems.
The agreement established a framework for accountability when violations are identified. When monitors document non-compliance with Flores standards, the Flores counsel can file motions to enforce the agreement in court . This enforcement mechanism has been invoked multiple times throughout the history of the agreement. For example, in 2018, the court found the government violated the agreement by administering psychotropic medications to children without appropriate consent . In 2020, the court found violations when children were held in unlicensed hotel facilities under the supervision of contractors lacking childcare qualifications . These enforcement actions have led to additional court orders specifying how certain types of violations must be addressed.
The geographic scope of monitoring has been a recent point of contention in the implementation of the agreement. Currently, independent inspections under Flores are limited to facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions . However, advocates have requested expanded authority to monitor facilities across the entire border region, citing evidence of violations occurring in multiple locations . This request remains pending before Judge Gee, who has expressed concern about prolonged detention times at various border facilities . The outcome of this request could significantly affect the comprehensiveness of oversight across the immigration detention system.
Despite these oversight mechanisms, significant challenges remain in ensuring consistent compliance across all facilities. The Flores counsel noted in recent court filings that even with court oversight, they continue to document violations including prolonged detention in inadequate conditions . The dynamic nature of migration patterns and the decentralized operation of detention facilities create ongoing compliance challenges. These implementation difficulties underscore the complexity of maintaining standards across a large and geographically dispersed detention system, particularly during periods of heightened migration flows.
Historical Context of Flores Agreement Enforcement
The implementation history of the Flores Agreement reveals a pattern of repeated challenges and ongoing non-compliance issues since its inception. Following the 1997 settlement, the government faced difficulties in consistently meeting the standards across its network of detention facilities. The first major enforcement action came in 2015 when ICE began detaining all female-headed families with children in secure, unlicensed facilities for prolonged periods . This practice directly violated the agreement's requirement that children be held in licensed facilities appropriate for their care. The court found the government in breach and reaffirmed that Flores protections applied to all children in immigration custody, whether accompanied or unaccompanied.
Between 2018 and 2024, multiple significant violations patterns emerged despite court oversight. In 2018, Flores counsel documented the administration of psychotropic medications to children without proper consent procedures at ORR facilities . The following year, inspections of CBP facilities revealed children detained without access to basic sanitation including soap, clean water, showers, clean clothing, or toothbrushes . During the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, the government transferred hundreds of children from CBP to ICE custody where they were detained in hotels under private contractor supervision without adequate childcare qualifications before being expelled under Title 42 authorities .
Timeline of Major Flores Agreement Enforcement Actions
* 2015: Court finds government violated Flores by detaining families in unlicensed facilities
* 2018: Government found administering psychotropic drugs to children without consent
* 2019: Widespread documentation of inadequate conditions in CBP facilities
* 2020: Illegal use of hotel facilities for child detention documented
* 2021: Emergency Intake Sites failed to provide education, recreation, adequate food and healthcare
* 2024: CBP detained children at open-air sites without shelter, medical care, or adequate sanitation
The Biden administration achieved a partial modification of the agreement in 2024, when Judge Gee ruled that special court supervision could end when children were transferred from CBP custody to the Department of Health and Human Services . However, this modification maintained protections for children in CBP facilities and included exceptions for certain types of facilities serving children with more acute needs . This historical context demonstrates that despite changes in administration and policy approaches, consistent compliance with Flores standards has remained an ongoing challenge spanning multiple presidencies and political configurations.
Future Implications and Potential Scenarios
The ongoing legal battle over the Flores Agreement has significant implications for immigration policy and the treatment of vulnerable populations. Judge Gee's recent decision to maintain the agreement ensures that minimum standards of care and independent oversight remain in place for immigrant children in government custody . However, the Trump administration's expected appeal means this protection framework faces an uncertain future. If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the justices could potentially overturn decades of established practice regarding judicial oversight of immigration detention conditions. This possibility creates significant concern among advocates who fear removal of enforceable standards would lead to deteriorating conditions for detained children.
Several potential policy scenarios could emerge from this ongoing litigation. If the administration ultimately succeeds in terminating the Flores Agreement, the government would have greater flexibility to detain families together for extended periods in expanded facilities . This approach aligns with the administration's stated goal of increasing deterrence through stricter enforcement. However, without court-enforceable standards, concerns exist that conditions could deteriorate based on historical patterns of non-compliance even with oversight. Alternatively, if the agreement remains in place, the government may need to continue prioritizing expedited processing and release of children and families, which administration officials argue undermines enforcement efforts.
The Flores debate intersects with broader immigration policy questions beyond detention conditions. These include discussions about appropriate responses to family migration, alternatives to detention programs, and the balance between enforcement priorities and humanitarian protections. The agreement has become a symbolic touchpoint in these larger debates, with implications for how the United States conceptualizes its obligations to vulnerable migrants, particularly children. The outcome of this specific legal battle will likely influence approaches to these broader policy questions regardless of which administration holds power in coming years.
Looking forward, the implementation challenges documented under Flores suggest that even if the agreement remains in place, ensuring consistent compliance across the detention system will require ongoing attention and resources. The historical pattern of violations indicates that meeting the agreement's standards has been a persistent challenge across multiple administrations of both parties. This suggests that structural factors beyond political preferences, including resource constraints, operational complexities, and system capacity issues, contribute to compliance difficulties. Addressing these underlying structural challenges may be necessary regardless of the legal framework governing detention standards.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Flores Agreement
What exactly does the Flores Agreement require the government to do? The Flores Settlement Agreement establishes minimum standards for the treatment of immigrant children in federal custody. It requires that children be held in the "least restrictive setting" appropriate to their age and needs . Specifically, it mandates adequate food and drinking water, medical assistance in emergencies, toilets and sinks, temperature control and adequate ventilation, supervision, and separation from unrelated adults . The agreement also limits detention in Customs and Border Protection facilities to no more than 72 hours before transfer to more appropriate settings . Perhaps most importantly, it requires that children be released without unnecessary delay to parents, adult relatives, or licensed programs willing to accept custody .
Why does the government want to end the Flores Agreement? Administration officials argue that the agreement creates incentives for families to migrate with children because it limits how long children can be detained with their parents . They contend this perceived "loophole" encourages illegal border crossings by families who believe they will be released quickly into the United States . Government attorneys also assert that Congress has enacted legislation and federal agencies have developed standards that make the court supervision redundant . Additionally, officials argue that the agreement restricts their ability to fully utilize expanded detention capacity funded through recent legislation .
How have children been affected by violations of the Flores Agreement? Documentation reveals multiple negative impacts on children when Flores standards aren't met. Children have reported psychological distress including sadness, anger, fear, and hopelessness . Physical health impacts include weight loss, inadequate medical care for conditions like swollen feet, and lack of access to appropriate nutrition . Prolonged detention beyond the 72-hour limit, sometimes exceeding three weeks, has been documented despite the agreement's requirements . Children have also described unsanitary conditions including overcrowded cells with overflowing toilets, inability to shower regularly, and sleeping on floors in crowded spaces .
What would happen if the Flores Agreement were terminated? If the agreement were successfully terminated, the government would no longer be subject to court-enforceable standards regarding conditions and length of detention for immigrant children . This would potentially allow indefinite detention of children in facilities that haven't been licensed for childcare . The independent monitoring mechanism that provides transparency about conditions would also cease, reducing public awareness of detention conditions . Administration officials have indicated they would seek to expand family detention capacity and length of detention if freed from Flores restrictions . Advocates fear this would lead to more children being held for longer periods in inadequate conditions .
The Flores Agreement represents a critical protection mechanism for immigrant children in U.S. custody, establishing enforceable standards that prioritize their well-being despite their immigration status. The recent court decision maintaining this framework underscores the ongoing necessity of independent oversight given documented patterns of non-compliance across multiple administrations. As legal proceedings continue, the fundamental question remains how a society balances enforcement priorities with humanitarian obligations to vulnerable children. The resolution of this specific legal battle will likely have implications extending far beyond the technicalities of a single settlement agreement, influencing how the United States treats vulnerable migrants for years to come.
This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit earlcotten.substack.com/subscribe
