logo
Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody

Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody

CNN14 hours ago
ImmigrationFacebookTweetLink
Follow
A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody.
US District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody.
Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order.
'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone,' Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement.
In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement.
Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.'
Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities.
Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week.
The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the US government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s.
The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long US Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children.
The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs.
In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April.
The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated.
Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New Orleans Mayor Joins Long Line of Louisiana Politicians Accused of Corruption
New Orleans Mayor Joins Long Line of Louisiana Politicians Accused of Corruption

New York Times

time4 minutes ago

  • New York Times

New Orleans Mayor Joins Long Line of Louisiana Politicians Accused of Corruption

Hundred-dollar bills stashed in a freezer. Riverboat casino licenses sold to the highest bidder. Truckloads of granite traded in a quid pro quo. Louisiana has a long and colorful history of political corruption allegations, which for decades have ensnared lawmakers at many levels of government. The most recent was Mayor LaToya Cantrell of New Orleans, who was indicted on Friday after a lengthy federal investigation. According to the charges laid out in the indictment, Ms. Cantrell abused public funds to facilitate a romantic relationship with her bodyguard, a city police officer, and then sought to cover up the personal time they spent together in New Orleans and on out-of-state trips while he claimed to be on duty. Ms. Cantrell's lawyer said on Friday that he needed to review the indictment before commenting; he declined to comment again on Saturday. Here's a look back at some of the most significant corruption scandals in Louisiana history: Richard Leche After the assassination of Huey Long, a popular Louisiana governor turned United States senator, in 1935, Richard Leche emerged as his successor. But Mr. Leche's single term as governor came to an early end when he resigned in 1939 amid corruption allegations. His resignation failed to stave off charges, and in 1940, he was convicted of mail fraud in a plot that prosecutors said involved a dealer selling trucks to the state's Highway Department at excessively high prices, and then giving Mr. Leche a kickback. He served five years in prison before President Harry S. Truman pardoned him in 1953. Huey and Earl Long Earl Long, the lieutenant governor under Leche in 1939, was swept into the state's highest office when his predecessor resigned. Mr. Leche's scandals loomed over Mr. Long's first term, and in 1940, Long was himself charged with embezzlement. The charges didn't stick, however, and Mr. Long would go on to win the governorship in two elections, holding office from 1948 to 1952 and from 1956 to 1960, in a career defined by personal excess and eccentric behavior. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Urban Deployments Raise Questions: What Is Our Military For?
Urban Deployments Raise Questions: What Is Our Military For?

Forbes

time4 minutes ago

  • Forbes

Urban Deployments Raise Questions: What Is Our Military For?

As noted in a recent report by the Center for American Progress, in 2022 Donald Trump stated that 'the next President should use every power at his disposal to restore order — and, if necessary, that includes sending in the National Guard or the troops' to conduct law enforcement activities on U.S. soil. In 2023, said that if restored to office, that he he would send troops to U.S. cities to combat crime: 'The next time, I'm not waiting. … We don't have to wait any longer.' Ominously, the president has talked of using troops to combat 'the enemy within." That time has come. Earlier this year the Trump administration deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles to deal with immigration protests. At the time, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said 'We don't take lightly to the president abusing his authority and unlawfully mobilizing California National Guard troops.' The new target of troops deploying to a U.S. city is in Washington, DC. On Saturday August 16th West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrissey annnounced a plan to deploy hundreds of National Guard member of his state's National Guard to Washington, DC, stating that 'West Virginia is proud to stand with President [Donald]The question is why? Violent crime in Washington, DC is projected to be down 26% this year from 2024. The demonstrations in Los Angeles were overwhelmingly peacaful until the show of force – police, National Guard and Marines – prompted clashes between protesters and military and law enforcement officials. Local law enforcement officers have gone so far as to fire munitions that have left both protesters and journalists injured. Many veterans have taken exception to the deployments, and some have filed an amicus brief in support of California Governor Gavin Newsom's opposition to the troop presence. One of them, Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, said 'This is the politicisation of the armed forces. It casts the military in a terrible light." President Trump's rationale for sending troops into U.S. cities is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which does indeed allow the president to deploy troops for domestic law enforcement in the event of an insurrection. But neither the immigration protests in Los Angeles nor the crime rate in DC qualify as an insurrection, by any stretch of the imagination. The deployments are deeply disturbing, and should be questioned by our elected leaders across the spectrum, along with veterans and average citizens concerned about federal overreach. Questions about the troop deployments need to be louder and more persistent. This is not a partisan issue. It is a basic issue about the role of the. military in a democracy. We can't afford to ignore it and go about business as usual.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store