Jenny Flores v. Jefferson Sessions, III
862 F.3d 863
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- The Flores Settlement (1997) set nationwide minimum standards for detention, care, and release of immigrant minors and required a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge for any minor in removal proceedings (Paragraph 24A).
- In 2002 and 2008 Congress enacted the Homeland Security Act (HSA) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), transferring care-and-placement responsibility for unaccompanied alien children (UACs) to HHS’s Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and including broad savings clauses.
- The government argued HSA/TVPRA implicitly terminated Paragraph 24A for UACs; plaintiffs moved to enforce the Settlement and require ORR to provide bond hearings to UACs.
- The district court enforced Paragraph 24A as to UACs; the government appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit held HSA and TVPRA do not, by text, structure, or purpose, render compliance with Paragraph 24A "impermissible," and affirmed enforcement of the bond‑hearing requirement for UACs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether HSA/TVPRA terminated Flores ¶24A bond‑hearing requirement for unaccompanied minors | Flores remains binding; statutes preserved by HSA savings clause and TVPRA incorporation; silence does not repeal consent decree rights | HSA/TVPRA transferred custody and placement to ORR and Congress’s silence shows intent to preclude immigration‑judge bond hearings for UACs | Held: Neither statute expressly nor implicitly repealed ¶24A; bond hearings remain required for UACs |
| Whether statutory framework leaves "no room" for immigration judges to review ORR detention decisions | Bond hearings provide independent review of detention; statutes concern care/placement, not adjudicatory review | ORR’s placement/control over UACs is exclusive, making IJ bond hearings incompatible | Held: Statutory text and structure do not grant ORR exclusive, absolute authority; interagency coordination anticipated; IJs may conduct bond hearings |
| Whether legislative intent supports eliminating bond hearings for UACs | HSA/TVPRA aimed to enhance protections for vulnerable children, consistent with preserving procedural protections | Congress intended child‑welfare agency control, so hearings before immigration judges would be inconsistent | Held: Legislative history shows intent to improve protections; stripping hearings would be inconsistent with that purpose |
| Whether changed law made enforcement of the consent decree "impermissible" (Rufo standard) | Plaintiffs: Government cannot meet burden to show consent decree is impermissible under changed law | Government: Statutory change is a significant legal change warranting modification | Held: Government failed to show compliance is impermissible; burden not satisfied; consent decree remains enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2016) (addressing Flores Settlement applicability and modification standards)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (standard for modifying consent decrees when law changes)
- Wright v. Sys. Fed. No. 91 Ry. Emps. Dept., 364 U.S. 642 (1961) (consent decrees should not be converted into an "instrument of wrong")
- NLRB v. Plasterers' Local Union No. 79, 404 U.S. 116 (1971) (caution against inferring repeal from congressional silence)
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (government obligations regarding detained minors)
- In re Mark Anthony Const., Inc., 886 F.2d 1101 (9th Cir. 1989) (interpreting effect of congressional silence on existing law)