Reno v. Flores is the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the federal government’s authority to keep immigrant children in institutional custody rather than release them to unrelated adults, but its lasting significance comes from what happened after: the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement, which still sets the binding national standards for how the United States treats children it detains for immigration reasons. The ruling itself answered a narrow constitutional question. The settlement answers the practical ones — where a child can be held, for how long, in what conditions, and to whom the government must try to release them.
How the Case Started
The lawsuit was filed in 1985 by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law as a class action. The named plaintiff was Jenny Lisette Flores, a fifteen-year-old from El Salvador who had been detained after arriving in the United States without a parent or guardian. The case was originally captioned Flores v. Meese, after then-Attorney General Edwin Meese, and was renamed as attorneys general changed over the years.
At issue was an Immigration and Naturalization Service policy that allowed the release of detained children only to a parent or legal guardian. If neither was available, the child stayed in an institutional facility while immigration proceedings went forward. The plaintiffs argued that other responsible adults, including aunts, uncles, and grandparents, should be considered as custodians, and that prolonged institutional detention was unreasonable when family alternatives existed. They grounded the challenge in the Fifth Amendment’s due process and equal protection guarantees.
What the Supreme Court Decided in 1993
The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts 7-2. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, rejected the premise that detained minors have a fundamental right to be released to a non-parent or non-guardian. Because no fundamental right was at stake, the Court applied the rational basis test rather than strict scrutiny, meaning the government only had to show its policy was reasonably connected to a legitimate interest.1Justia. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
The Court found that connection easily. Where a child has no available parent or close relative, where the government does not intend to punish the child, and where conditions of custody are decent and humane, Scalia wrote, such custody does not violate the Constitution.2Legal Information Institute. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
The majority also declined to import a “best interests of the child” standard into constitutional review of INS custody decisions. That standard works in custody disputes between two parents, the Court said, but was never meant as the sole constitutional test for government decisions involving children more broadly.1Justia. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993)
The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement
Winning at the Supreme Court did not end the case. It returned to the lower courts, where the parties kept fighting over detention conditions and release procedures. In 1997, they settled. The Flores Settlement Agreement is a binding, court-supervised agreement overseen by a federal judge in the Central District of California, and the Ninth Circuit has characterized it as a consent decree, which means the court can enforce its terms through contempt proceedings.3Congress.gov. The Flores Settlement and Alien Families Apprehended at the U.S. Border
The agreement replaced prior INS policies with a single set of national standards covering the detention, release, and treatment of all minors in immigration custody, regardless of how they entered the country. Its opening language states that it “sets out nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors” and “shall supersede all previous INS policies that are inconsistent with” its terms.4Administration for Children and Families. Flores Settlement Agreement
Plaintiffs’ counsel remain the only non-governmental parties authorized to inspect detention sites nationwide and interview detained children to verify compliance. The case is still active in 2026, with regular filings and status conferences before Judge Dolly Gee.
Release Preferences and Timelines
The settlement’s most consequential provision is its preference for release over detention. Paragraph 14 directs the government to release a child “without unnecessary delay” unless detention is required to ensure the child appears for immigration proceedings or to protect safety. When release is appropriate, the agreement sets a strict order of preference:
- A parent
- A legal guardian
- An adult relative such as a sibling, aunt, uncle, or grandparent
- An adult designated by a parent or guardian through a signed declaration or equivalent documentation
- A licensed program willing to accept legal custody
- Another adult or entity seeking custody, at the government’s discretion, when no other alternative to long-term detention exists and family reunification is not reasonably possible
That hierarchy was a significant expansion from the pre-settlement policy that limited release to parents and legal guardians.4Administration for Children and Families. Flores Settlement Agreement
The agreement also sets transfer deadlines. When a child is apprehended in a district where a licensed care program has space, the government must transfer the child within three days. In all other cases, the deadline is five days. During emergencies, large influxes of minors, or situations involving remote apprehensions or unusual language interpretation needs, the deadline extends to five business days.4Administration for Children and Families. Flores Settlement Agreement
Standards Inside Detention Facilities
Exhibit 1 of the settlement sets minimum standards for the licensed programs that hold children. Facilities must provide suitable living space, food, clothing, and grooming items; routine and emergency medical and dental care, including a full medical exam within 48 hours of admission; structured classroom instruction Monday through Friday in core subjects, with materials available in the child’s language; daily outdoor recreation when weather permits, with defined minimum hours of physical and structured leisure activity; at least one individual counseling session per week with trained social work staff; and individualized intake assessments that consider each child’s history, special needs, and potential for reunification with relatives in the United States. Every facility must also comply with applicable state child welfare laws and local building, fire, health, and safety codes.4Administration for Children and Families. Flores Settlement Agreement
The phrase “safe and sanitary” became a national flashpoint in 2019, when a federal court found that Border Patrol was failing to provide children with soap, towels, toothbrushes, showers, dry clothing, and adequate sleep. The Ninth Circuit upheld that finding, ruling that denying children such basic necessities breached the settlement. The case made clear that the settlement’s standards are enforceable minimums, not aspirations.
Who Runs This Now: HHS and ORR
The original settlement bound the INS, and that agency no longer exists. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 dissolved the INS and split its functions among new agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. The same law transferred responsibility for the care and placement of unaccompanied children to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the Department of Health and Human Services. Under 6 U.S.C. § 279, the ORR Director coordinates placement, ensures children’s interests guide custody decisions, and oversees the facilities where children reside.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 6 USC 279 – Children’s Affairs
The Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 added further protection. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1232, any federal agency holding an unaccompanied child must transfer that child to HHS custody within 72 hours, except in exceptional circumstances. Children from Mexico and Canada must be screened within 48 hours to determine whether they are trafficking victims before any return. The statute also requires placement in “the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child” and prohibits placing a child in a secure facility unless the child poses a danger or faces criminal charges.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1232 – Enhancing Efforts to Combat the Trafficking of Children
In practice, Customs and Border Protection or Immigration and Customs Enforcement apprehends a child and must transfer them to ORR within 72 hours. ORR then places the child in its network of shelters and licensed programs while working to identify a sponsor through the release preference hierarchy.7Office of Refugee Resettlement. Unaccompanied Alien Children Sponsor identification includes an application, interviews, identity and relationship verification, background checks, and, in some cases, a home study; the process is conducted with qualified interpreters so sponsors can participate in their native language.8Office of Refugee Resettlement. ORR Unaccompanied Children Program Policy Guide – Section 2
The 2015 Family Detention Ruling and the 20-Day Limit
The original settlement was understood to cover unaccompanied minors, children who arrived without a parent. Whether it also protected children detained alongside their parents was a separate question that went unresolved for years. In 2015, Judge Dolly Gee ruled that the settlement’s protections apply to accompanied children too, meaning children held with their parents in family detention facilities are entitled to the same conditions and release timelines.
That ruling produced the 20-day figure that now dominates public debate. The original agreement’s transfer deadlines run three to five days, but the 20-day number emerged from judicial interpretation as a practical outer boundary on how long children can be held in unlicensed facilities. The court ordered the government to release children from family detention “without unnecessary delay” and concluded that extended family detention was incompatible with the settlement. That has driven the recurring policy tension between releasing families quickly and separating parents from children.
Attempts to End the Settlement
Multiple administrations have tried to escape the settlement’s constraints. In 2019, DHS and HHS issued a final rule that would have allowed the government to license its own family detention facilities rather than comply with the settlement’s requirement of state-licensed programs, and would have permitted indefinite family detention. Judge Gee blocked the rule, finding it largely defeated the settlement’s purpose. The Ninth Circuit allowed parts to proceed on appeal, but the regulation was never implemented.
In 2024, HHS under the Biden administration issued a different rule, the “Unaccompanied Children Program Foundational Rule,” aimed at codifying the settlement’s standards through formal regulation so the agreement could be terminated as no longer necessary. That rule has since been revoked and is not in effect.
In May 2025, the Department of Justice moved to terminate the settlement outright, arguing that existing regulations had sufficiently incorporated its goals. Judge Gee denied that motion in August 2025, ruling that the government had not achieved “sufficiently substantial compliance” and that there had been “no meaningful change in factual conditions or in law” since the last termination attempt. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit in December 2025, and that appeal remains pending.
Where Things Stand in 2026
The Flores Settlement Agreement remains in full effect. Monthly compliance reports from CBP and ICE juvenile coordinators are submitted to the court, status conferences before Judge Gee continue, and as recently as May 2026 the government filed motions seeking partial reconsideration of court orders.
Compliance remains a live problem. As of January 2026, DHS had confined more than 900 children in family detention centers beyond the 20-day limit, with roughly 270 of those children detained for over 40 days. Those figures have prompted continued enforcement motions from plaintiffs’ counsel, who retain the authority to inspect detention facilities and interview children nationwide.
Nearly three decades after the settlement was signed, Reno v. Flores is remembered less for what the Supreme Court decided than for the framework the case produced. For immigration attorneys, advocates, and families navigating the system, that framework is still the single most important document governing how the United States treats children in its immigration custody.