Jenny Flores v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12439
| 9th Cir. | 2016Background
- The 1997 Flores Settlement (consent decree) governs nationwide detention, release, and treatment of minors in INS custody, defining "minor" as anyone under 18 detained in INS custody (except emancipated minors and those convicted as adults) and creating a presumption favoring release and placement in licensed, non-secure facilities.
- The Settlement requires prompt processing, notice of rights, transfer to licensed non-secure facilities within five days (unless emergency/influx), and an order of preference for release (parent, guardian, adult relative, designated adult, licensed program, other adult).
- In 2014–15, ICE opened family detention centers (e.g., Karnes, Dilley) whose policies and facilities did not comply with Flores; government argued Flores applies only to unaccompanied minors and sought modification.
- Flores moved to enforce the Settlement in the Central District of California; the district court held the Settlement applies to all minors (accompanied and unaccompanied), denied the government’s motion to amend, and ordered several remedial measures including release preferences and that accompanying parents be released with minors unless mandatory detention or safety/flight risks existed.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the Settlement de novo as a contract/consent decree and the Rule 60(b) modification claim for abuse of discretion, and held: (1) the Settlement unambiguously applies to accompanied minors; (2) the Settlement does not create affirmative release rights for accompanying parents; (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government’s motion to amend on the record presented.
Issues
| Issue | Flores' Argument | Lynch (Government) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Flores Settlement apply to accompanied minors? | Settlement protects all minors in INS custody; applies to accompanied minors. | Settlement was aimed at unaccompanied minors; family-detention context was not intended. | Applies to accompanied minors (unambiguous language and context). |
| Does the Settlement require release of accompanying parents with minors? | Release preference to a parent implies parents must be released or receive individualized custody determinations. | Settlement grants no rights to adults; does not require release of parents. | Settlement does not create affirmative release rights for parents; district court erred to the extent it imposed such a right. |
| Should the Settlement be modified under Rule 60(b)(5) due to changed circumstances (family influx, statutory changes)? | (Govt) Changed border dynamics and statutes make original terms inequitable and impracticable. | (Flores) Settlement anticipated influx and remains operative; modifications should be narrowly tailored. | District court did not abuse discretion in denying modification; government failed to show impermissibility or appropriate tailoring. |
| Can extrinsic evidence (complaint, class description) change meaning of the Settlement? | Flores: Settlement encompasses broader relief beyond pleadings; intent supports inclusion. | Govt: Complaint and class focused on unaccompanied minors, so Settlement shouldn’t cover accompanied minors. | Settlement’s text is unambiguous; extrinsic evidence not needed and does not alter meaning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (upholding INS rule on juvenile release against facial due process challenge)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (standards for modifying consent decrees under changed circumstances)
- Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009) (discussing Rule 60(b)(5) in institutional reform litigation)
- Local No. 93, Int’l Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501 (1986) (consent decrees may provide broader relief than a court could have awarded at trial)
- United States v. Asarco Inc., 430 F.3d 972 (9th Cir. 2005) (consent decree interpreted like a contract; extrinsic evidence only to resolve ambiguity)
- Nehmer v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, 494 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2007) (clear language of consent decrees controls interpretation)
- Miller v. Safeco Title Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 364 (9th Cir. 1985) (de novo review of contract interpretation)