LOS ANGELES (KESQ) – A judge in downtown Los Angeles indicated today she would reject the Trump administration’s move to terminate a 28-year-old edict governing how immigrant children are detained in federal custody and will continue to enforce safeguards provided under the so-called “Flores settlement agreement.”   

The agreement — overseen by U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in L.A. federal court — remains one of the only legal tools to prevent the prolonged incarceration of immigrant children detained at U.S. border crossings. Immigrant-rights groups allege there are ongoing violations of the settlement’s protections, including the long-term detention of migrant children in punitive conditions at border stations.

Friday’s hearing focused on two opposing motions: the government’s motion to end the Flores agreement and the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the settlement’s terms. At the conclusion of the 90 minute proceeding, Gee did not immediately issue a ruling, taking the matter under submission. However, before the judge took the bench, representatives of the U.S. Justice Department and various immigrant-rights groups received her tentative, unpublished decision on the motion to terminate.

Justice Department attorney Tiberius Davis told the judge that the Flores agreement is out of date and needs to be dissolved in order to reflect changes brought by the second Trump administration, including modifications to law, compliance, “facts,” shifts in policies and executive function.

Gee then asked if the Flores protections should be “thrown to the wind” just because a new administration has taken office.   

The government attorney said that the Flores settlement was unusual in that it “dictates the operation of immigration law,” which should not be under the supervision of the court.

“It does not dictate the operation of immigration law,” the judge said, explaining that the agreement dictates the conditions of children in immigration custody. Moreover, Gee said, the government bound itself to the consent decree nearly 30 years ago.

Approved in 1997, the Flores settlement — named for lead plaintiff Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old detainee when the class-action complaint was filed in 1985 — requires that children be held in licensed, child-appropriate facilities and released to family members or guardians as quickly as possible. Under the terms of the settlement, Flores co-counsel are permitted to visit detention sites where children are being held and hear directly from them about their treatment and the duration of their detention.

Child psychologists have long warned that detention of even two weeks can have severe developmental and health consequences that can last a lifetime, immigrant-rights groups say.

Arguing for the plaintiffs on the motion to terminate, Carlos Holguin, an attorney at the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law, said the government wants to terminate the settlement “so it can detain children for as long as it wishes … given this administration’s propensity for hardship on children.”  

Holguin said evidence shows the government “has yet to establish they are in substantial compliance with the FSA.”  

Moving to the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the agreement, the judge indicated that although current figures show there are fewer children arriving at the border, evidence reveals a higher number of complaints regarding length of detention and issues such as food, temperatures, and access to telephones.

CHRCL attorney Bardis Vakili said he’s “never seen custody times like we’re seeing now … despite the plummeting numbers.”   

Gee said that minors held for long periods of time at border stations was among the most concerning recent problems, something “which wasn’t even done in the first Trump administration.” A border station, she said, is not “a safe and sanitary location.”

Joshua McCroskey, a Justice Department attorney, responded that “there have always been difficult cases where processing takes longer periods of time. … (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) does try to transfer minors out of its custody as quickly as possible.”

The Justice Department filed its motion in May to dissolve Flores, calling the agreement “ossified” and “intrusive.” The motion contends that “continued enforcement of the FSA instead of the policies of the people’s representatives is not in the public interest because continued enforcement interferes with the Executive Branch’s authority to enforce the immigration laws.”

It was not immediately known when the judge would issue her ruling.