The Flores Settlement Agreement is a 1997 court-approved consent decree that sets nationwide rules for how the U.S. government must treat, house, and release children in federal immigration custody. It creates a strong preference for releasing children to family, requires “safe and sanitary” conditions when they must be held, and limits how long and where children can be detained. Nearly three decades after it was signed, it still governs the treatment of migrant minors and remains the anchor of ongoing court fights over family detention.
What the Agreement Requires
The settlement’s core is a binding framework with three parts: a presumption of release, minimum standards for detention, and procedural rights for the child.
Release to Family, in a Set Order
When detention is not needed to secure a child’s appearance at immigration proceedings or to protect the child’s safety, the government must release the minor “without unnecessary delay” to a custodian, following a specific order of preference: a parent, then a legal guardian, then an adult relative such as a sibling, aunt, uncle, or grandparent, then an adult or entity designated by the parent or guardian, then a licensed program willing to accept legal custody, and finally another adult or entity approved at the government’s discretion.1Administration for Children and Families. Flores Settlement Agreement
The custodian must sign an Affidavit of Support and commit to the child’s well-being and appearance at future hearings. The government is separately required to make “prompt and continuous efforts toward family reunification and release.”2National Conference of State Legislatures. Unaccompanied Minors and the Flores Settlement Agreement: What to Know
“Safe and Sanitary” Conditions and the Least-Restrictive Setting
Children who cannot be released must be placed in facilities that are “safe and sanitary” and appropriate to their vulnerability as minors. The agreement calls for the “least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs,” ideally in facilities licensed by a state agency for residential, group, or foster care.1Administration for Children and Families. Flores Settlement Agreement
Specific minimums include access to toilets, sinks, drinking water, food, and emergency medical care, along with adequate temperature control, ventilation, and supervision. Unaccompanied minors must be separated from unrelated adults, and if separation is not immediately possible, co-housing may not exceed 24 hours.1Administration for Children and Families. Flores Settlement Agreement
Secure or juvenile detention is reserved for narrow situations, such as when a minor is an escape risk, poses a danger to themselves or others, or has been charged with or convicted of a crime beyond isolated or petty offenses.3Congressional Research Service. The Flores Settlement Agreement and Unaccompanied Alien Children in Federal Custody
Notice, Counsel, and Judicial Review
Detained children must receive notice of their rights, including the right to a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge. They have the right to legal representation and to attorney-client visits. Children with special needs — including those with histories of substance abuse, mental illness, or prior abuse — must be placed in programs providing appropriate services. Any child may seek judicial review in U.S. District Court to challenge a placement or to allege that a facility does not meet the settlement’s standards.1Administration for Children and Families. Flores Settlement Agreement
Who the Agreement Covers
The settlement applies to all minors in federal immigration custody, not only children who arrive alone. That point was contested for years. In 2015, U.S. District Judge Dolly M. Gee ruled in Flores v. Johnson that the agreement’s plain language defines a “minor” as any person under 18 in legal custody, and that the text lists specific exclusions but says nothing about excluding accompanied children.4Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Flores v. Lynch, No. 15-56434 She found the government had been “unnecessarily dragging their feet” on releasing children and described conditions in temporary border jails as “deplorable.”5American Immigration Council. Court Orders Prompt Release of Immigrant Children From Family Detention
The Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal in 2016, agreeing that the settlement covers accompanied minors. The appellate court reversed one part of Judge Gee’s ruling, holding that the agreement does not create independent release rights for accompanying parents.4Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Flores v. Lynch, No. 15-56434 That is a boundary worth noting: the settlement protects the child, not the parent. A parent may remain in detention while the settlement’s clock runs on the child.
The Roughly 20-Day Limit
Courts have interpreted the “without unnecessary delay” requirement, in practice, as requiring children to be released or placed in a licensed facility within about 20 days.2National Conference of State Legislatures. Unaccompanied Minors and the Flores Settlement Agreement: What to Know That 20-day window has become one of the settlement’s most consequential features, and it is the provision that has driven repeated attempts by successive administrations to modify or terminate the agreement.
How the Settlement Fits With Federal Statutes
Two later laws reinforced the framework the settlement created. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 moved custody of unaccompanied children from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services, shifting them from a law-enforcement system to one built for child welfare.6Refugees International. Chapter Two: The Flores Saga
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) of 2008 added more protections. It requires the Department of Homeland Security to transfer unaccompanied children to ORR within 72 hours and mandates screening for trafficking.7Women’s Refugee Commission. Protecting Unaccompanied Children: ORR and the TVPRA Unlike adults and accompanied families, who may face expedited removal, unaccompanied children must be placed in full removal proceedings before an immigration judge.3Congressional Research Service. The Flores Settlement Agreement and Unaccompanied Alien Children in Federal Custody Both the settlement and the TVPRA require placement in the “least restrictive setting” appropriate to the child’s age and needs. Together, they create overlapping protections that have been difficult for any administration to dismantle.
Where the Agreement Came From
The case began in 1985, when Jenny Lisette Flores, a 15-year-old from El Salvador who had fled civil war, was arrested near San Ysidro, California, after crossing the border without documentation. She was held at a facility in Pasadena, where she was housed with unrelated adults and subjected to regular strip searches.8NBC News. When Migrant Children Were Detained Among Adults, Strip Searched The INS refused to release her to her aunt, citing rules that permitted release only to a parent or legal guardian.9Support KIND. Flores Procedure Fact Sheet Flores spent two months in detention before a judge ordered her release.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a class-action lawsuit on her behalf and on behalf of other detained minors, arguing that indefinite detention of children violated the Constitution and immigration law.10UC Davis School of Law. Flores Settlement: 1985 Case Sets Rules for How Government Can Treat Migrant Children Another named plaintiff, 16-year-old Ana Maria Martinez Portillo, was subjected to strip and vaginal searches at a privately run detention facility.8NBC News. When Migrant Children Were Detained Among Adults, Strip Searched The Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the National Center for Youth Law served as lead counsel for the plaintiffs, and have continued to maintain the litigation.6Refugees International. Chapter Two: The Flores Saga
The litigation reached the U.S. Supreme Court in Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993), which upheld the facial validity of the INS rule restricting release to parents, legal guardians, or close relatives, provided detention conditions were “decent and humane.”11Cornell Law Institute. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 That ruling did not end the case. With the consent decree on conditions still in force, the parties negotiated a comprehensive settlement during the Clinton administration. The court approved it on January 17, 1997.12Immigration History. The Flores Settlement
What Has Changed Recently, and What Hasn’t
The settlement was intended as a temporary framework, replaced once the government issued final regulations implementing its terms. For more than 25 years, that did not happen. The agreement was meant to sunset with implementing rules, and successive administrations have tried different routes to get there or to end it outright.
Partial Termination as to HHS
On April 30, 2024, the Biden administration published the Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule, a comprehensive HHS regulation governing unaccompanied children in ORR custody. It took effect July 1, 2024. The government then moved to terminate the settlement as it applied to HHS, arguing the new rule effectively codified the agreement’s protections.
On June 28, 2024, Judge Gee granted the motion in part. She found the foundational rule was a “significant change in circumstances,” pointing to the fact that Texas and Florida had refused to license ORR-funded facilities, creating an oversight gap the rule’s alternative mechanisms were designed to fill. The court accepted substitute safeguards including enhanced monitoring, an advisory licensing team, accreditation requirements, and a new ombuds office.13National Center for Youth Law. Order on Motion to Terminate Flores Settlement Agreement as to HHS
The termination was partial. Judge Gee denied termination as to provisions governing placement in secure or heightened-supervision settings and out-of-network facilities, where she found the rule’s protections insufficient, and she deferred ruling on plaintiffs’ counsel’s access to ORR facilities and information about detained children.13National Center for Youth Law. Order on Motion to Terminate Flores Settlement Agreement as to HHS The settlement remains in full force as to DHS.
The 2022 CBP Settlement
A separate 2022 settlement addressed conditions in Customs and Border Protection facilities in the Rio Grande Valley and El Paso sectors. The court granted final approval on July 29, 2022, and on August 3, 2022, Judge Gee appointed Dr. Paul H. Wise as Juvenile Care Monitor.14U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Flores v. Garland, Order Appointing Juvenile Care Monitor It required CBP to designate at least one “Juvenile Priority Facility” in each sector, staff those locations with contracted medical personnel around the clock, and conduct health intake interviews for all arriving children. Children under 12, pregnant individuals, and those with illness or injury were entitled to assessments by credentialed providers. CBP was also required to provide age-appropriate meals, clean drinking water, hygiene products, blankets, and appropriate clothing. Withholding food or water as punishment was explicitly prohibited.15National Center for Youth Law. Flores v. Garland CBP Settlement Agreement
The Current Fight: Termination and the One Big Beautiful Bill
On August 15, 2025, Judge Gee denied a Trump administration motion to terminate the agreement entirely. She wrote that improvements in detention conditions were “direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose” and found that DHS and HHS were not in “sufficiently substantial compliance to warrant termination.”16CNN. Judge Denies Trump Administration’s Bid to End Flores Settlement
Government lawyers had argued that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4, 2025, effectively authorized indefinite family detention and rendered the settlement moot. The law allocated $45 billion for new immigration detention centers, explicitly including family facilities, and was projected to expand ICE detention capacity to over 100,000 beds.17American Immigration Council. Big Beautiful Bill: Immigration and Border Security Fact Sheet It also removed existing statutory protections regarding the licensing of family residential centers.18National Immigration Law Center. The Anti-Immigrant Policies in Trump’s Final Big Beautiful Bill Explained
The administration appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where the case is pending as Flores v. Bondi (No. 25-6308). Multiple amicus briefs were filed on January 28, 2026. The Constitutional Accountability Center, writing for members of Congress, argued that the One Big Beautiful Bill is a budget reconciliation measure that, under the Byrd Rule, cannot include substantive policy changes exceeding its budgetary impact, and that its detention funding is an appropriation rather than a legal mandate altering detention standards.19Constitutional Accountability Center. Flores v. Bondi A coalition of 20 states led by California filed a separate brief arguing that state licensing is a core provision of the agreement and that prolonged family detention is incompatible with state child welfare oversight.20California Attorney General. Flores Amicus Brief The Young Center and other child welfare organizations argued that the settlement’s safeguards are “essential to the well-being and legal rights of children in immigration custody.”21The Young Center. Amicus Brief: Flores v. Bondi As of early 2026, the case awaits an oral argument date.
Meanwhile, the settlement continues to be enforced. Court-appointed monitors visit CBP facilities and file reports with the court, and legal advocates have asked Judge Gee to expand independent monitoring after evidence emerged that 213 children were held beyond the 72-hour custody limit in March and April 2025.16CNN. Judge Denies Trump Administration’s Bid to End Flores Settlement Monthly status reports from CBP and ICE juvenile coordinators are still being filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.22National Center for Youth Law. Flores v. Reno Until the Ninth Circuit rules or new regulations survive challenge, the 1997 agreement remains the operating standard for the treatment of children in federal immigration custody.