Flores Settlement Agreement: 2024 Termination and Flores v. Bondi

The Flores Settlement Agreement is a 1997 federal court settlement that sets nationwide minimum standards for how the U.S. government must treat, house, and release immigrant children in federal custody. It requires prompt release when possible, the least restrictive setting when release is not possible, and safe and sanitary conditions in the meantime. Nearly three decades on, it remains in force, and it is currently the subject of active litigation styled Flores v. Bondi, in which the Trump administration is asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to terminate it.¹

What the Settlement Requires

The agreement applies to every immigrant minor under 18 in federal custody, whether the child arrived alone or with a parent.² Its core obligations on the government are:

Release children from custody “without unnecessary delay” to a parent, legal guardian, adult relative, or licensed program.
When release is not possible, place the child in the least restrictive setting appropriate for their age and needs, generally a state-licensed, non-secure facility.
Provide safe and sanitary conditions, including adequate food, drinking water, medical care, temperature control, ventilation, supervision, and contact with family.
Keep unaccompanied minors separate from unrelated adults after 24 hours.
Give children notice of their rights on being taken into custody, and allow them to seek judicial review of placement decisions.

Federal courts, particularly Judge Dolly M. Gee of the Central District of California, have read the agreement as imposing a practical limit of roughly 20 days on detention of children in unlicensed facilities.³

Which Agencies It Covers

Flores binds children held by the Department of Homeland Security, through Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and children held by the Department of Health and Human Services through the Office of Refugee Resettlement.² The agreement contains a termination clause. It was supposed to expire 45 days after the government published final regulations implementing its terms, but no administration has ever completed that rulemaking to the court’s satisfaction, which is why the settlement has now outlived five presidencies.⁴

Where the Name Comes From

The case began in the 1980s, when immigration attorney Carlos Holguín challenged the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s detention of minors in facilities without basic child welfare protections.⁴ The named plaintiff, Jenny Lisette Flores, was a 15-year-old from El Salvador held in immigration detention because her mother refused an interrogation by immigration officials, fearing deportation to a war zone.⁵ The case reached the Supreme Court in 1993 as Reno v. Flores, and the plaintiffs and the Clinton administration finalized the settlement in 1997.⁶ Holguín and co-counsel Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law have continued to serve as lead counsel through decades of enforcement litigation.⁷

Family Separation and the “Loophole” Debate

The settlement became a public issue during the Trump administration’s 2018 “zero tolerance” border policy. Family detention facilities generally did not meet the state-licensing standards Flores requires, which meant the government could hold children for only about 20 days. Rather than release families together, the administration criminally prosecuted the adults and reclassified children who had arrived with a parent as “unaccompanied,” moving them separately into HHS custody.⁸

The administration called the settlement a “loophole” that forced a choice between separating families and detaining them indefinitely. Advocates responded that Flores does not require separation, and that the government could release families together into community-based alternatives to detention.⁹

The 2019 Rule and the Ninth Circuit

In August 2019, the Trump administration issued a final rule intended to replace the settlement with federal regulations. The rule would have let the government “self-license” its own family detention facilities, bypassing state licensing and effectively permitting indefinite family detention, and it limited the circumstances under which accompanied children could be released.¹⁰

Judge Gee issued a permanent injunction, finding the rule “largely defeated” the settlement’s purpose. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit allowed some of the HHS regulations governing unaccompanied minors to take effect but affirmed the injunction against the DHS regulations governing accompanied children, holding that they departed from the settlement’s “presumption in favor of releasing minors” and its requirement for licensed, non-secure facilities.¹¹ The Biden administration ultimately dropped efforts to implement the 2019 rule.

The 2024 Partial Termination

In 2024, HHS issued a “Foundational Rule” (89 Fed. Reg. 34,384) that codified much of the settlement into federal regulations. On June 28, 2024, Judge Gee granted a partial termination as to HHS, finding the rule substantially implemented the agreement’s protections for most children in HHS care.¹²

The termination was limited. The court kept Flores in place for children in secure, medium-secure, and out-of-network facilities, finding the new rule inadequate there. Monitoring by plaintiffs’ counsel continued, and the court allowed states that refuse to license facilities housing unaccompanied children, Texas and Florida, to use alternative oversight through enhanced monitoring and accreditation.¹² The settlement remained fully in force for every child in DHS custody.¹³

Flores v. Bondi: The 2025 Attempt to End the Settlement

On May 22, 2025, the Trump administration filed a motion in the Central District of California to terminate Flores entirely, arguing the settlement was “no longer equitable or in the public interest” and improperly shifted authority over immigration detention from the executive branch to the judiciary.¹⁴

Plaintiffs responded with a motion to enforce, alleging that CBP facilities were “harsh, prison-like, unsafe, and unsanitary.” They pointed to lack of soap, no privacy in restrooms, verbal abuse by agents, denial of phone calls, minimal parent-child visitation, and inadequate medical care. Filings showed CBP held 46 children for more than a week in May 2025, and that during March and April 2025, 213 children were held past the 72-hour limit before transfer to HHS custody.¹⁵

On August 15, 2025, Judge Gee denied the motion to terminate in a 20-page opinion. She found that neither DHS nor HHS had shown “sufficiently substantial compliance” with the settlement’s terms, and that the government still had not completed the required Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking.¹⁶ The administration’s arguments, she wrote, were largely identical to those raised in the failed 2019 effort: “There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law.” She called it “nonsensical” to argue the agreement should end because it was working.¹⁵ The ruling left in place requirements for adequate meals, clean water, clothing, education, medical assistance, and the least restrictive detention setting, as well as access by court-appointed monitors and lawyers to border stations and family detention centers.¹⁷

The government has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Its central argument on appeal is that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, a budget reconciliation law enacted in July 2025, is a “changed circumstance” warranting an end to the settlement, pointing to the law’s $45 billion appropriation for detention capacity as evidence of congressional intent to shift toward detaining immigrant families and children.¹

Where Things Stand

As of early 2026, the Flores Settlement Agreement remains in effect for all children in DHS custody and for children in restrictive and out-of-network HHS facilities.¹³ The Ninth Circuit has not scheduled oral argument on the government’s appeal of the termination denial, and no appellate ruling has issued.¹ Judge Gee retains jurisdiction in the Central District of California and continues to manage enforcement through status conferences, monitor reports, and compliance filings from the juvenile coordinators at CBP and ICE.¹⁸ An April 3, 2026 order cited data showing children held in hotels well beyond the permitted one-to-two-night transit stays, including one minor held for 16 days, and warned that “continued non-compliance will result in the re-appointment of a Special Master/Independent Monitor.”¹⁹

1
Constitutional Accountability Center. Flores v. Bondi
2
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Flores Settlement Agreement
3
National Conference of State Legislatures. Unaccompanied Minors and the Flores Settlement Agreement
4
WUNC. The History of the Flores Settlement and Its Effects on Immigration
5
Time. Flores Settlement Agreement Standards
6
Immigration History. The Flores Settlement
7
Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law. Litigation
8
Columbia Human Rights Law Review. The Law and Lawlessness of U.S. Immigration Detention
9
Women’s Refugee Commission. Backgrounder: Flores and Family Separation
10
American Immigration Council. Terminate Flores Agreement Could Leave Immigrant Children Unprotected
11
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Flores v. Barr, No. 19-56326
12
National Center for Youth Law. Order on Motion to Terminate Flores Settlement Agreement as to HHS
13
American Bar Association. Addendum D: Flores Settlement Agreement
14
American Academy of Pediatrics. Court Filing: Detained Immigrant Children Held in Conditions Below Standards
15
CNN. Judge Denies Trump Administration Request to End Flores Settlement
16
American College of Physicians. Flores v. Bondi Amicus Brief
17
The New York Times. Migrant Children Trump Flores Settlement
18
National Center for Youth Law. Flores v. Reno
19
National Center for Youth Law. Status Conference Order, April 3, 2026