Federal judge denies Trump administration's push to change immigrant children protections

Judge blocks indiscriminate ICE raids in LA

A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration must stop indiscriminate immigration raids across Southern California, after immigrant rights groups sued, saying agents racially profiled their targets and denied them access to counsel.

LOS ANGELES (CNS) - A federal judge in downtown Los Angeles has rejected the Trump administration's move to terminate a 28-year-old edict governing how immigrant children are detained in federal custody.

U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee issued her ruling Friday, finding that "defendants fail to identify any new facts or law that warrant the termination of the Flores Settlement Agreement at this time."

The so-called "Flores agreement" -- overseen by Gee in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California -- remains one of the only legal tools to prevent the prolonged incarceration of immigrant children detained at U.S. border crossings.

Approved in 1997, the 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.

Lawyers for the federal government had argued that the agreement is out of date and needed to be dissolved in order to reflect changes brought by the second Trump administration, including modifications to law, compliance, "facts," shifts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.

During a hearing on Aug. 8, U.S. Justice Department attorney Tiberius Davis told the judge 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 countered, 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.

Immigrant-rights groups have alleged ongoing violations of the settlement's protections, including the long-term detention of migrant children in punitive conditions at border stations.

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."

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."

White House officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday's ruling.