Jenny Flores v. Loretta Lynch

Citations: 828 F.3d 898; 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12439; 2016 WL 3670046Docket: 15-56434

Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; July 6, 2016; Federal Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the enforcement of a 1997 Settlement concerning the treatment of minors in Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) custody. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's ruling, holding that the Settlement applies to both accompanied and unaccompanied minors. However, it found that the district court incorrectly interpreted the Settlement as granting release rights to accompanying adults. The court upheld the district court's denial of the government's request to amend the Settlement. 

The Settlement establishes a presumption favoring the release of minors and mandates their placement in licensed, non-secure facilities. Following a surge of undocumented Central American migrants in 2014, the government opened family detention centers that did not comply with the Settlement's requirements. In 2015, the plaintiff class sought enforcement of the Settlement, asserting it applies to all minors, which the district court agreed with, ordering the government to undertake several actions including efforts toward family reunification, timely release of minors, appropriate detention conditions, and monitoring compliance with these mandates.

The government appealed a district court ruling that the Settlement applies to all minors in immigration custody, ordered the release of parents, and denied a motion to modify. The court's role was to interpret the Settlement, concluding that it clearly applies to both accompanied and unaccompanied minors but does not grant parents release rights. The court affirmed part of the district court's decision, reversed another part, and remanded the case.

Historically, in 1984, the INS implemented a policy restricting the release of detained minors to parents or lawful guardians, which led to a lawsuit by Flores in 1985 challenging this policy and detention conditions. In 1986, the district court certified two classes of minors affected by the INS's policy and conditions of detention, which included inadequate access to exercise, education, and legal counsel, and inappropriate searches. A consent decree in 1987 required the government to meet certain standards when detaining juveniles for more than 72 hours, and the court ruled that the INS's differential treatment of minors violated the Equal Protection Clause. In response, the INS adjusted its rules regarding the release of minors to parents or designated adults, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

In 1997, the Settlement was approved, defining a "minor" as anyone under 18 in INS custody, excluding emancipated minors and those incarcerated as adults. It mandates that the INS process minors expeditiously and provide them with a notice of rights, ensuring they are held in safe and sanitary facilities that consider their vulnerability.

The INS is required to transfer minors to a non-secure, licensed facility within five days of arrest, although in cases of emergencies or influxes of minors, this transfer can occur as quickly as possible. The Settlement establishes a presumption in favor of releasing minors, prioritizing family reunification. If detention is deemed unnecessary for the minor's safety or appearance in court, the minor must be released to a parent, legal guardian, adult relative, or other designated adult, with a licensed program as a last resort. A licensed program must meet specific state standards for care and support services, including medical care, education, and family contact. Minors with criminal records may be placed in juvenile detention instead. The Settlement is enforceable in the Central District of California, but challenges can be made in any relevant district court. Originally set to terminate by 2002, its end is contingent on the government publishing final regulations, which have yet to occur. Post-2001, following the September 11 attacks, immigration policies became more restrictive, complicating family releases and leading to the establishment of family detention centers. The transformation of the INS and the subsequent transfer of responsibilities to the Department of Homeland Security and the Office of Refugee Resettlement also impacted the care of unaccompanied minors. Legal challenges regarding conditions in these facilities have emerged, notably from children at the Don T. Hutto Family Residential Center.

The government contended that the Settlement only applied to unaccompanied minors; however, the district court rejected this, affirming that it covered all minors in ICE and DHS custody. The court determined that the minors' confinement at Hutto violated the Settlement's standards but dismissed the claim for the release of parents alongside their children. The case settled prior to trial. In 2008, the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act partially codified the Settlement by establishing statutory standards for unaccompanied minors.

In 2014, following an influx of undocumented Central Americans at the U.S.-Mexico border, ICE opened family detention centers in Texas and New Mexico, which operated under standards not compliant with the Settlement. In January 2015, a group of Central American migrants filed a class action claiming a no-release policy for families, challenging it under the Due Process Clause. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction, finding that while there was no blanket no-release policy, DHS policies emphasized deterrence in custody determinations, which influenced increased detentions of Central American families.

In May 2015, the government announced it would stop using deterrence in custody decisions for families but reserved the right to reinstate the policy. By June 2015, the preliminary injunction was dissolved by agreement of the parties, allowing plaintiffs to seek reinstatement if deterrence was invoked again. Concurrently, on February 2, 2015, Flores filed a motion in California to enforce the Settlement, arguing breaches concerning the no-release policy and the confinement of children in unlicensed facilities. The government sought to amend the Settlement to exclude accompanied minors. On July 24, 2015, the court ruled in favor of Flores, denying the government's amendment, and mandated the release of a minor's accompanying parent unless it posed a flight or safety risk. A remedial order was issued on August 21, 2015, and the government appealed. The case is reviewed under 28 U.S.C. 1292, with the Settlement interpreted as a contract and motions for relief from judgment assessed for abuse of discretion.

The Settlement Agreement explicitly covers accompanied minors, as defined by its terms. It considers a minor any individual under eighteen years old detained by the INS, and establishes a nationwide policy regarding the treatment of all minors in INS custody. The Agreement includes specific guidelines for unaccompanied minors, indicating it does not intend to exclude accompanied minors from its broader application. The Agreement explicitly identifies emancipated minors and those incarcerated as adults as exclusions, suggesting that accompanied minors are included unless explicitly stated otherwise. The government's argument that only dependent minors qualify for licensed programs fails, as the definition does not exclude accompanied minors and is intended to ensure oversight of detention conditions. Furthermore, while the Settlement requires an affidavit from custodians prior to a minor's release, this does not preclude the possibility of releasing a child to a family member or guardian, as long as the child's parent is not in custody. However, the Settlement does not resolve issues related to housing family units or parental rights of adults detained with minors.

Exhibit 1 outlines requirements for licensed programs but lacks standards for the detention of adults or family units. Despite this omission, the Flores Settlement is applicable to all minors in custody of ICE and DHS, including accompanied minors, not just unaccompanied ones. The Settlement’s Paragraph 19 establishes detention standards for any minor in U.S. immigration custody, which should equally apply in family detention contexts. The government contends that the Complaint and certified classes were limited to unaccompanied minors, arguing that this precludes granting rights to accompanied minors. However, the initial focus of the litigation on unaccompanied minors—who made up 70% of detained immigrant children—does not limit the broader implications of the Settlement, which addresses detention conditions affecting both accompanied and unaccompanied minors. 

The government challenges the class certification based on the profile of the named plaintiffs, but the premise is flawed as one plaintiff was accompanied by her adult brother. Additionally, the government forfeited its right to contest class certification by settling the case without timely appeal. The Settlement explicitly applies to accompanied minors and does not necessitate the government to release parents. Flores’ motion to enforce argued that ICE’s no-release policy for accompanying parents undermined the rights of minor class members to preferential release to a parent, suggesting individualized custody determinations. The district court tentatively agreed, stating that ICE’s no-release policy contradicts the Settlement’s provision for preferential release. The court highlighted that if a minor cannot be released to a non-detained relative, they may be released with an accompanying relative in detention, supported by ICE's past practices until June 2014. Ultimately, the court ruled that the government must release an accompanying parent unless it poses a flight or safety risk.

The district court incorrectly interpreted the Settlement by granting release rights to adults, as the Settlement explicitly does not confer such rights. While it allows class members preferential release to parents, it does not mandate that a parent be made available. The plain language of the consent decree is clear, negating the need for extrinsic evidence, which does not support the idea of granting release rights to parents. The context of the Flores Settlement indicates that unaccompanied minors preferred release to adults other than their parents over custody, and there is no evidence that ICE's prior releases of children and parents were due to the Settlement. The district court's order incorrectly shifted the burden to the government to justify detention of parents, requiring a higher standard of “significant flight risk” instead of the typical “risk of flight.” Additionally, parents were not plaintiffs in the Flores case and are not part of the certified classes, so the Settlement does not grant them release rights. The district court also correctly denied the government's motion to amend the Settlement, as modifications require a significant change in circumstances that warrants revision. The government claimed the increase in family units crossing the border justified modification; however, such events were anticipated at the time of the Settlement, making modification inappropriate.

The Settlement anticipates an influx of minors and allows the government additional time to either release them or place them in licensed programs. It argues against exempting entire categories of migrants, suggesting instead that adjustments should apply to all migrants. The government cites changes in law since the Settlement, including the 1996 authorization of expedited removal and the 2002 Homeland Security Act, but these do not justify non-compliance with the Settlement. Additionally, while some provisions of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) may conflict with the Settlement, this does not render the Settlement inapplicable to accompanied minors. The district court's decision to deny the motion to amend was not an abuse of discretion. The Settlement applies to accompanied minors but does not mandate the release of their parents. The court affirms in part, reverses in part, and remands for further proceedings, with each party bearing its own costs. A second motion to enforce is pending in the district court.