In a significant legal ruling, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee upheld the Flores Settlement Agreement, a crucial protection for immigrant children in federal custody. This decision rebuffed the Trump administration's efforts to dissolve the longstanding agreement, as CNN reports.

The Los Angeles-based federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration's attempt to end protections for children in federal immigration custody, emphasizing the ongoing necessity of the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement.

The Flores Settlement Agreement, established in 1997, sets specific standards for the treatment and confinement conditions of immigrant children under federal custody.

It mandates child care in licensed facilities and restricts detention under U.S. Customs and Border Protection to a maximum of 72 hours, after which the Department of Health and Human Services takes over custody.

Government seeks changes to expand detention space

The Trump administration argued that the Flores Agreement limits its ability to expand detention facilities for immigrant families. This claim was backed by a recent tax and spending bill that ostensibly provided the government the authority to build new immigration detention centers.

Government attorney Tiberius Davis stated that the Flores Agreement was effectively null due to the new legislative measures, suggesting that it prevented the administration from implementing planned expansions in detention capabilities.

However, the administration's claims were countered by Judge Gee's finding that any improvements in detention conditions demonstrated the effectiveness of the Flores Agreement, rather than providing grounds to terminate it.

Judge cites progress, evidence of protections' effectiveness

Judge Gee acknowledged that conditions for detained immigrant children had improved over the years. However, she opined that these improvements were a testimony to the effectiveness of the Flores regulations.

"These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical," stated Judge Gee in her ruling.

This ruling affirmed that despite advancements, the purpose of the Flores Settlement Agreement remains as vital as ever. Gee emphasized that the ongoing issues in government handling of immigrant child detention underscored the need for continued protections.

Legal advocates call for increased monitoring

Recent reports have highlighted continuing violations, including instances where children were detained beyond the 72-hour limit set by the Flores Agreement. It was reported that 46 children were held in detention longer than allowed, with cases extending up to 19 days.

This has prompted calls from legal advocates for increased independent monitoring of facilities, pointing out the prolonged detention periods as violations of the Flores Agreement.

Last year, the Biden administration managed to end special court supervision under Flores when the Department of Health and Human Services took custody of the children, except for those with acute needs.

Nevertheless, the core protections of the Flores Agreement, especially pertaining to the initial detention period under US Customs and Border Protection, remain critically important.

Judge stands firm on maintaining safeguards

Judge Gee's decision reflects a resistance to governmental efforts she believes might dilute the protections afforded to vulnerable children under federal custody.

Her ruling underscored what she said were the importance of maintaining rigorous standards for the treatment of immigrant children.

Despite governmental arguments for policy reform, the court remains a steadfast guardian of the principles established by the Flores Settlement. As stated by Judge Gee, the facts and the law have not changed sufficiently to warrant a dismissal of this protective measure.

"There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Judge Gee concluded, signaling a strong judicial endorsement of the protections established almost three decades ago.