On August 15, 2025, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles delivered a decisive ruling that keeps the nearly three-decade-old Flores Settlement Agreement firmly in place, thwarting the Trump administration’s latest attempt to end the landmark protections for immigrant children in federal custody. The decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over how the United States treats children detained at its borders—a debate that, as Judge Gee noted, has an air of “déjà vu.”
The Flores Settlement Agreement, first formalized in 1997 after years of litigation sparked by widespread allegations of mistreatment of migrant children in the 1980s, sets out clear standards for the conditions in which immigrant children must be held. According to CNS, the agreement is named after Jenny Lisette Flores, who was just 15 years old when she became the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit filed in 1985. The settlement requires that children be held in licensed, child-appropriate facilities, provided with basic necessities such as food, water, emergency medical services, and adult supervision, and released to family members or guardians as quickly as possible. It also strictly limits the time that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can hold child immigrants—no more than 72 hours before the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must take custody.
Judge Gee’s Friday order followed a hearing held on August 8, 2025, during which attorneys for the Trump administration argued that changes to immigration law and policy since 1997 justified ending the agreement. They pointed to what they described as “substantial changes,” including new standards and policies that, in their view, rendered the Flores agreement obsolete. Tiberius Davis, an attorney for the government, contended that the settlement “dictates the operation of immigration law,” something he argued should not be under the supervision of the court. Davis also noted that, under recent legislation, the government now has the authority to hold families in detention indefinitely—if not for the constraints of the Flores agreement. “But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that’s essentially void,” Davis said, as reported by CNN.
Judge Gee, however, was unpersuaded. In her written ruling, she observed, “There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants’ motion on that basis alone.” She went further, noting that improvements made by the government in the conditions of confinement for children actually demonstrated the ongoing value of the agreement rather than a reason to abandon it. “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,” she wrote.
The Trump administration’s push to end the Flores agreement is not new. The federal government previously attempted to terminate the settlement in 2019, during the first Trump administration, only to be rebuffed by the courts. This latest effort, according to Judge Gee, failed to identify any new facts or legal developments that would justify a different outcome. “Defendants fail to identify any new facts or law that warrant the termination of the Flores Settlement Agreement at this time,” she stated, as quoted by CNS.
Immigrant rights groups, meanwhile, have consistently alleged ongoing violations of the settlement’s protections. They point to the long-term detention of migrant children in punitive and sometimes unsafe conditions at border stations. During the August 8 hearing, Carlos Holguin, an attorney at the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law, argued that the government’s true motive for wanting to terminate the settlement was so that it “can detain children for as long as it wishes ... given this administration's propensity for hardship on children.”
Recent data revealed in court filings underscores these concerns. In May 2025, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six for more than two weeks and four for a staggering 19 days. In March and April, CBP reported that 213 children were held in custody for more than the 72-hour limit, with 14—including toddlers—detained for over 20 days in April alone, according to CNN. These figures, advocates say, highlight persistent failures to comply with the agreement’s terms and reinforce the need for ongoing court oversight.
Under the Flores agreement, co-counsel for the plaintiffs are permitted to visit detention sites and hear directly from children about their treatment and the duration of their detention. This provision has been a critical tool for monitoring compliance and ensuring that the voices of detained children are not lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. Currently, third-party inspections are allowed at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs have submitted evidence showing long detention times at other border facilities that violate the agreement’s terms. Judge Gee has not yet ruled on a request from legal advocates to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in CBP facilities.
The Biden administration, for its part, has managed to partially end the agreement’s requirements, specifically allowing for special court supervision to cease when HHS takes custody of children—except in certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. However, the core protections of the Flores agreement remain in place, thanks to Judge Gee’s latest ruling.
The federal government continues to seek ways to expand its immigration detention space, including the construction of new centers like the one in Florida dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz.” That facility has come under legal scrutiny, with lawsuits alleging that detainees’ constitutional rights are being violated. The Trump administration’s attorneys have argued that the Flores agreement hampers their ability to expand detention space for families, even though recent tax and spending bills have provided billions of dollars for new immigration facilities.
Joshua McCroskey, another Justice Department attorney, acknowledged during the August hearing that “there have always been difficult cases where processing takes longer periods of time. ... (U.S. Customs and Border Protection) does try to transfer minors out of its custody as quickly as possible.” Still, the numbers cited in court filings suggest that, for many children, the reality falls short of the agreement’s standards.
For now, Judge Gee’s ruling preserves one of the few remaining legal bulwarks against the indefinite incarceration of immigrant children at U.S. border crossings. As she reminded both sides, the government voluntarily bound itself to the consent decree nearly 30 years ago, and improvements in care are not a reason to end oversight. With the debate over immigration policy showing no signs of abating, the Flores Settlement Agreement—and the court’s willingness to enforce it—remains a critical safeguard for some of the most vulnerable individuals in the U.S. immigration system.
As the legal battle continues, all eyes are on Judge Gee’s pending decision regarding expanded independent monitoring—a step that could further strengthen protections for immigrant children. For now, the message from the federal bench is clear: the standards set nearly three decades ago are still needed, and the courts are not ready to relinquish their oversight just yet.
