Trump administration seeks to end basic rights and protections for child immigrants in its custody
The Trump administration is trying to end a cornerstone immigration policy that requires the government to provide basic rights and protections to child immigrants in its custody.
The protections, which are drawn from a 1997 consent decree known as the Flores Settlement Agreement, limit the amount of time children can be detained by immigration officials. It also requires the government to provide children in its custody with adequate food, water and clean clothes.
The administration's move to terminate the Flores agreement was long anticipated. In a court motion filed Thursday, the justice department argued that the Flores agreement should be 'completely' terminated, claiming it has incentivized unauthorized border crossings and 'prevented the federal government from effectively detaining and removing families'.
Donald Trump also tried to end these protections during his first term, making very similar arguments.
The move to end protections follows a slew of actions by the Trump administration that target children, including restarting the practice of locking up children along with their parents in family detention. Immigration advocacy groups have alleged in a class-action lawsuit filed earlier this month that unaccompanied children are languishing in government facilities after the administration unveiled policies making it exceedingly difficult for family members in the US to take custody of them. The president and lawmakers have also sought to cut off unaccompanied children's access to legal services and make it harder for families in detention to seek legal aid.
'Eviscerating the rudimentary protections that these children have is unconscionable,' said Mishan Wroe, senior attorney at the National Center for Youth Law. 'At this very moment, babies and toddlers are being detained in family detention, and children all over the country are being detained and separated from their families unnecessarily.'
The effort to suspend the Flores agreement 'bears the Trump administration's hallmark disregard for the rule of law – and for the wellbeing of toddlers who have done no wrong', said Faisal al-Juburi of the Texas-based legal non-profit Raices. 'This administration would rather enrich private prison contractors with the $45bn earmarked for immigrant detention facilities in the House's depraved spending bill than to uphold basic humanitarian protections for babies.'
The Trump administration in 2019 asked a judge to dissolve the Flores Settlement Agreement, but its motion was struck down. During the Biden administration, a federal judge agreed to partially lift oversight protections at the Department of Health and Human Services, but the agreement is still in place at the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies.
'Children who seek refuge in our country should be met with open arms – not imprisonment, deprivation and abuse,' said Sergio Perez, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.
The settlement is named for Jenny Flores, a 15-year-old girl who fled civil war in El Salvador and was part of a class-action lawsuit alleging widespread mistreatment of children in custody in the 1980s.
Since the settlement agreement was reached in 1997, lawyers and advocates have successfully sued the government several times to end the mistreatment of immigrant children. In 2018, attorneys sued after discovering unaccompanied children had been administered psychotropic medication without informed consent.
In 2024, a court found that CBP had breached the agreement when it detained children and families at open-air detention sites at the US southern border without adequate access to sanitation, medical care, food, water or blankets. In some cases, children were forced to seek refuge in portable toilets from the searing heat and bitter cold.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Belfast Telegraph
13 minutes ago
- Belfast Telegraph
US Supreme Court asked to pause order reinstating Education Department staff
The Justice Department's emergency appeal to the high court on Friday said US District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the lay-offs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold. Mr Joun's order has blocked one of Mr Trump's biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed. The judge wrote that the lay-offs 'will likely cripple the department'. But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on Friday that Mr Joun was substituting his policy preferences for those of the Trump administration. The lay-offs help put in place the 'policy of streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration's view, are better left to the states', Mr Sauer wrote. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court in April voted 5-4 to block Mr Joun's earlier order seeking to keep in place Education Department teacher-training grants. The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Mr Trump's plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department. One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other suit was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general. The suits argued that the lay-offs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws. Mr Trump has made it a priority to shut down the Education Department, though he has acknowledged that only Congress has the authority to do that. In the meantime, Mr Trump issued a March order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to wind it down 'to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law'. Mr Trump later said the department's functions will be parcelled to other agencies, suggesting federal student loans should be managed by the Small Business Administration and programmes involving students with disabilities would be absorbed by the Department of Health and Human Services. Those changes have not yet happened. The president argues that the Education Department has been overtaken by liberals and has failed to spur improvements to the nation's lagging academic scores. He has promised to 'return education to the states'. Opponents note that K-12 education is already mostly overseen by states and cities. Democrats have blasted the Trump administration's Education Department budget, which seeks a 15% budget cut including a 4.5 billion dollar cut in K-12 funding as part of the agency's downsizing.
South Wales Argus
13 minutes ago
- South Wales Argus
US Supreme Court asked to pause order reinstating Education Department staff
The Justice Department's emergency appeal to the high court on Friday said US District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the lay-offs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold. Mr Joun's order has blocked one of Mr Trump's biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed. The judge wrote that the lay-offs 'will likely cripple the department'. But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote on Friday that Mr Joun was substituting his policy preferences for those of the Trump administration. The lay-offs help put in place the 'policy of streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration's view, are better left to the states', Mr Sauer wrote. He also pointed out that the Supreme Court in April voted 5-4 to block Mr Joun's earlier order seeking to keep in place Education Department teacher-training grants. The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Mr Trump's plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department. One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other suit was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general. The suits argued that the lay-offs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws. Mr Trump has made it a priority to shut down the Education Department, though he has acknowledged that only Congress has the authority to do that. In the meantime, Mr Trump issued a March order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to wind it down 'to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law'. Mr Trump later said the department's functions will be parcelled to other agencies, suggesting federal student loans should be managed by the Small Business Administration and programmes involving students with disabilities would be absorbed by the Department of Health and Human Services. Those changes have not yet happened. The president argues that the Education Department has been overtaken by liberals and has failed to spur improvements to the nation's lagging academic scores. He has promised to 'return education to the states'. Opponents note that K-12 education is already mostly overseen by states and cities. Democrats have blasted the Trump administration's Education Department budget, which seeks a 15% budget cut including a 4.5 billion dollar cut in K-12 funding as part of the agency's downsizing.
The Independent
14 minutes ago
- The Independent
U.S., Chinese officials to meet in London next week for new round of trade talks
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
