The Supreme Court ruled that the Immigration and Naturalization Service's regulations regarding the release of alien unaccompanied minors did not violate the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution.

[1] The Court held that "alien juveniles detained on suspicion of being deportable may be released only to a parent, legal guardian, or other related adult."

[4] In his June 20, 2018 executive order, President Trump had directed then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions to ask the District Court for the Central District of California, to "modify" the Flores agreement to "allow the government to detain alien families together" for longer periods, which would include the time it took for the family's immigration proceedings and potential "criminal proceedings for unlawful entry into the United States".

[4]: 2  On July 9, Judge Gee of the Federal District of California, ruled that there was no basis to amend the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA) that "requires children to be released to licensed care programs within 20 days.

[6] The federal government appealed the decision saying that the order forcing them to offer specific items and services exceeded the original Flores agreement.

The June 18, 2019 hearing became infamous[7] and caused nationwide outrage when a video of the Department of Justice senior attorney arguing against providing minors with toothbrushes and soap went viral.

[8]: 1648  The unaccompanied minor was taken to a detention facility where she was held among adults of both sexes, was daily strip searched, and was told she would only be released to the custody of her parents, who, INS suspected, were illegal immigrants.

[8]: 1648 [10] The plaintiffs originally directed their complaint at the newly released policy introduced by then director of Western Region of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Harold W. Ezell.

He ordered the INS to provide the minors with an "administrative hearing to determine probable cause for his arrest and the need for any restrictions placed upon his release.

[12][16]: 35  This "invalidating the regulatory scheme on due process grounds" and ordered the INS to "release any otherwise eligible juvenile to a parent, guardian, custodian, conservator, or "other responsible adult party".

On August 9, 1991, the Ninth Circuit 11-judge en banc majority in Flores v. Meese, overturned its June 1990 panel opinion and affirmed Judge Kelleher's 1988 ruling against the government citing federal constitutional grounds including due process.

[Notes 4][21] According to Judge Gee's ruling in Flores v. Sessions, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion to enforce [Paragraph 24A of] the Flores Agreement, holding that nothing in the text, structure, or purpose of the Homeland Security Act (HSA) or Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPRA) renders continued compliance with Paragraph 24A, as it applies to unaccompanied minors, "impermissible.

Juveniles who are not released would "generally require" a "suitable placement at a facility which, in accordance with the [1987] consent decree, had to meet specified care standards.

The Court also held that this was not "beyond the scope of the Attorney General's discretion" because the INS 242.24 "rationally pursued the lawful purpose of protecting the welfare of such juveniles.

"[27] Stevens, joined by Blackmun, dissented, expressing the view that the litigation history of the case at hand cast doubt on the good faith of the government's asserted interest in the welfare of such detained alien juveniles as a justification for 242.24, and demonstrated the complete lack of support, in either evidence or experience, for the government's contention that detaining such juveniles, when there were "other responsible parties" willing to assume care, somehow protected the interests of those juveniles; an agency's interest in minimizing administrative costs was a patently inadequate justification for the detention of harmless children, even when the conditions of detention were "good enough"; and 242.24, in providing for the wholesale detention of such juveniles for an indeterminate period without individual hearings, was not authorized by 1252(a)(1), and did not satisfy the federal constitutional demands of due process.

[28][29][30][31] Following many years of litigation which started with the July 11, 1985 filing of class action lawsuit, Flores v. Meese, and included the Supreme Court case Reno v. Flores which was decided in 1993, the consent decree or settlement was reached in the United States District Court for the Central District of California between the parties.

[4]: 7  By 2001, both parties agreed that the FSA "would remain in effect until 45 days following [the] defendants' publication of final regulations" governing the treatment of detained, minors.

[16][43][44][36] The government said an average of 20 days was required for adjudication of "credible fear" and "reasonable fear" claims, among the grounds for asylum in the United States, and on August 21, 2015 Judge Gee clarified the "without unnecessary delay" and "promptly" language in the Flores settlement, ruling that holding parents and children for up to 20 days "may fall within the parameters" of the settlement.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed Judge Gee's motion to enforce the Flores Agreement, saying that there was "nothing in the text, structure, or purpose of the HSA or TVPRA" that rendered "continued compliance with Paragraph 24A, as it applies to unaccompanied minors, "impermissible.

"[57][58] Fabian said that the Flores agreement mandating "safe and sanitary" conditions for detained migrant children was "vague" which let the federal agencies determine "sanitation protocols.

Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Gee's 2017 "order requiring immigration authorities to provide minors with adequate food, water, bedding, toothbrushes and soap.

"[63][64] On May 26, 2018 Trump tweeted, "Put pressure on the Democrats to end the horrible law that separates children from there [sic] parents once they cross the border into the U.S."[65] On May 29, 2018 White House senior policy advisor Stephen Miller told reporters, "A nation cannot have a principle that there will be no civil or criminal immigration enforcement for somebody traveling with a child.

The current immigration and border crisis, and all of the attendant concerns it raises, are the exclusive product of loopholes that Democrats refuse to close,"[65] such as the Flores Settlement Agreement and the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008.

[35] By June 2018, the Flores Agreement received increased public attention when Trump, his administration, and supporters cited the FSA and Democratic recalcitrance as justification for the Trump administration family separation policy, in which all adults detained at the U.S.–Mexico border were prosecuted and sent to federal jails while children and infants were placed under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

"[55] Despite the wording of Flores v. Reno, human rights advocates asserted that no law or court order mandated the separation of children from their families.

"[30] On June 14, 2018, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters, "The separation of illegal alien families is the product of the same legal loopholes that Democrats refuse to close.

[41] On June 19, 2018 White House Legislative Affairs Director Marc Short told reporters the Trump administration had sought legislative relief from Congress on the Flores Settlement, saying "In each and every one of our negotiations in the last 18 months, all the immigration bills, we asked for resolution on the Flores settlement that is what we view requires 20 days before you have to release children and basically parents been released with children into society.

"[32] According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS) report, President Trump's June 20, 2018 executive order, had directed then-United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions to ask the Judge Dolly M. Gee of District Court for the Central District of California in Los Angeles, which oversees the Flores Agreement Settlement, to "modify the agreement" to "allow the government to detain alien families together throughout the duration of the family's immigration proceedings as well as the pendency of any criminal proceedings for unlawful entry into the United States.

[70] On September 7, 2018 federal agencies published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would terminate the FSA "so that ICE may use appropriate facilities to detain family units together during their immigration proceedings, consistent with applicable law.

"[71] On August 23, 2019, the administration issued a rule allowing families to be held in humane conditions while their U.S. immigration court cases were decided.