212 F. Supp. 3d 864
C.D. Cal.2015Background
- Flores class-action settlement (approved Jan. 28, 1997) governs detention, release, and treatment of minors in INS/DHS custody; remains in force because implementing regulations were never published.
- Beginning summer 2014, ICE adopted a blanket "no-release" policy detaining female-headed family units (parents and children) in secure, unlicensed family residential centers for immigration proceedings.
- Plaintiffs moved to enforce the Settlement (Flores Agreement), alleging: (1) ICE’s no-release policy violates the Agreement’s preference-for-release and reunification duties; (2) children are held in secure, unlicensed facilities contrary to the Agreement’s non-secure, licensed-program requirements; and (3) Border Patrol holding conditions breach the Agreement’s "safe and sanitary" custody provisions.
- Defendants opposed enforcement and moved to modify the Agreement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(5) and (6), arguing changed law (HSA, TVPRA) and changed factual circumstances (2014 "surge") justify amendment, and seeking to exempt family residential centers from licensing and release provisions.
- District Court held evidentiary declarations and documentary record show: ICE’s family-detention policy is a material breach — accompanied minors are within the class; accompanying parents must be considered for release; family centers are secure and unlicensed; Border Patrol holding conditions are not "safe and sanitary." Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce and denied Defendants’ motion to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do accompanied minors fall within the Flores Agreement class? | Flores: Agreement covers "all minors detained in INS custody," including accompanied minors. | DHS: Agreement aimed at unaccompanied minors; accompanied minors not intended class members. | Held: Plain language and context show accompanied minors are covered. |
| 2. Does ICE’s blanket no-release family detention policy violate the Agreement’s preference-for-release? | Flores: Paragraph 14 requires release to parent/guardian absent individualized risk; ICE must consider releasing accompanying parent and child together. | DHS: Safety exception and operational concerns justify detaining accompanied children with parent; deterrence policy supports family detention. | Held: Blanket no-release breaches Agreement; accompanying parent must be released absent individualized flight/safety risk. |
| 3. Must children be housed only in non-secure, state-licensed programs when not released? | Flores: Paragraphs 6,19,23 require placement in licensed, non-secure programs; family residential centers are secure and unlicensed, so violate Agreement. | DHS: Such centers did not exist in 1997 and cannot be state-licensed; ICE standards and oversight constitute substantial compliance. | Held: Facilities are secure and unlicensed; licensing/non-secure requirement is material; DHS materially breached. |
| 4. Do Border Patrol hold rooms meet the Agreement’s "safe and sanitary" custody standard? | Flores: Testimony shows overcrowding, cold, inadequate food, hygiene, and medical care violating Paragraph 12. | DHS: Short-term nature, policies, and medical screening satisfy minimal standards. | Held: Plaintiff declarations outweigh policy assertions; CBP holding conditions materially breach the Agreement. |
| 5. Should the Agreement be modified because of changes in law (HSA/TVPRA) or facts (2014 surge)? | Flores: HSA / TVPRA do not conflict with or supersede Agreement’s release, licensing, or custody terms as applied to accompanied minors. | DHS: HSA/TVPRA, agency reorganizations, and the 2014 surge make compliance impracticable and undermine public interest—modify under Rule 60(b). | Held: Defendants failed to show a significant legal or factual change warranting modification; motion to amend denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (recognizing district court power to enforce settlement agreements as orders of the court)
- O'Neil v. Bunge Corp., 365 F.3d 820 (contract principles govern construction/enforcement of settlement agreements)
- Thompson v. Enomoto, 915 F.2d 1383 (consent decrees have attributes of contracts and judicial acts; interpret under situs state contract law)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (standard for modifying consent decrees under Rule 60(b)(5))
- Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327 (modification requires conflicts so significant that compliance with both statute and decree would be impermissible)
- Kennewick Irrigation Dist. v. United States, 880 F.2d 1018 (written contract read as whole; interpret every part with reference to whole)