Reno v. Flores

Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, was a Supreme Court of the United States case that addressed the detention and release of unaccompanied minors.
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. 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." The legacy for which Reno v. Flores became known was the subsequent 1997 court-supervised stipulated settlement agreement which is binding on the defendants —the Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement or Flores Settlement Agreement to which both parties in Reno v. Flores agreed in the District Court for Central California. The Flores Settlement Agreement, supervised by C.D. Cal., has set strict national regulations and standards regarding the detention and treatment of minors by federal agencies for over twenty years. It remains in effect until the federal government introduces final regulations to implement the FSA agreement. The FSA governs the policy for the treatment of unaccompanied alien children in federal custody of the legacy INS and its successor—United States Department of Homeland Security and the various agencies that operate under the jurisdiction of the DHS-in particular the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services. The FSA is supervised by a U.S. district judge in the District Court for Central California.
The litigation originated in the class action lawsuit Flores v. Meese filed on July 11, 1985 by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and two other organizations on behalf of immigrant minors, including Jenny Lisette Flores, who had been placed in a detention center for male and female adults after being apprehended by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service as she attempted to illegally cross the Mexico–United States border.
Under the Flores Settlement and current circumstances, DHS asserts that it generally cannot detain alien children and their parents together for more than brief periods. 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". On July 9, Judge Gee of the Federal District of California, ruled that there was no basis to amend the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement that "requires children to be released to licensed care programs within 20 days."
In 2017, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found that children who were in custody of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection lacked "food, clean water and basic hygiene items" and were sleep-deprived. She ordered the federal government to provide items such as soap and to improve the conditions. 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 and caused nationwide outrage when a video of the Department of Justice senior attorney arguing against providing minors with toothbrushes and soap went viral. The federal government lost their appeal when a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Gee's order on August 15, 2019.

Background and lower court cases

In 1985, Jenny Lisette Flores, an unaccompanied 15-year-old girl from El Salvador, was apprehended by the Immigration and Naturalization Service after illegally attempting to cross the Mexico–United States border. 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.
On July 11, 1985, the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and two other organizations, filed a class action lawsuit Flores v. Meese, No. 85-4544 on behalf of Flores and "all minors apprehended by the INS in the Western Region of the United States", against U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese, challenging the conditions of juvenile detention and alleging that the "defendants' policies, practices and regulations regarding the detention and release of unaccompanied minors taken into the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service in the Western Region" were unconstitutional. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said that government's detention and release policies were in violation of the children's rights under the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs originally directed their complaint at the newly released policy introduced by then director of Western Region of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, Harold W. Ezell. Under the new policy—83 Fed. Reg. at 45489—which was introduced on September 6, 1984, a detained immigrant minor "could only be released to a parent or legal guardian". This resulted in minors, such as Flores, being detained in poor conditions for "lengthy or indefinite" periods of time.
In late 1987, the C.D. Cal District Court had "approved a consent decree to which all the parties had agreed, "that settled all claims regarding the detention conditions".
In 1988, INS issued a new regulation— 8 CFR 242.24—that amended the 8 Code of Federal Regulations parts 212 and 242 regarding the Detention and Release of Juveniles. The new INS regulation, known as 242.24, provided for the "release of detained minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians, except in unusual and compelling circumstances." The stated purpose of the rule was "to codify the policy regarding detention and release of juvenile aliens and to provide a single policy for juveniles in both deportation and exclusion proceedings."
On May 25, 1988, soon after the 8 CFR 242.24 regulation took effect, C.D. Cal District Judge Kelleher in Flores v. Meese, No. CV 85-4544-RJK rejected it and removed limitations regarding which adults could receive the minors. Judge Kelleher held that all minors have the right to receive a hearing from an immigration judge. Judge Kelleher held that 8 CFR 242.24 "violated substantive due process, and ordered modifications to the regulation." He ruled that "INS release and bond procedures for detained minors in deportation proceedings fell short of the requirements of procedural due process." 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." The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs regarding the release conditions. 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". The District Court also required that the juvenile have a hearing with an immigration judge immediately after their arrest, even if the juvenile did not request it.
In Flores v. Meese, 681 F. Supp. 665, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Kelleher found that the INS policy to strip search children was unconstitutional.
In June 1990, in Flores v. Meese, 934 F.2d 991, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judges John Clifford Wallace and Lloyd D. George, reversed Judge Kelleher's 1988 ruling. Judge Betty Binns Fletcher dissented. In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges concluded that the INS did not exceed its statutory authority in promulgating 242.24. They ruled that 242.24 did not violate substantive due process, under the Federal Constitution's Fifth Amendment. They ruled that a remand was necessary with respect to a procedural due process claim.
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. They vacated the panel opinion and affirmed the District Court's order in all respects. According to Judge Gee's ruling in Flores v. Sessions, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of plaintiffs' motion to enforce the Flores Agreement, holding that nothing in the text, structure, or purpose of the Homeland Security Act or Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 renders continued compliance with Paragraph 24A, as it applies to unaccompanied minors, "impermissible."
On March 23, 1993, the Supreme Court announced judgment in favor of the government, in Janet Reno, Attorney General, et al. v. Jenny Lisette Flores, et al. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Byron White, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas, held that the unaccompanied alien children had no constitutional right to be released to someone other than a close relative, nor to automatic review by an immigration judge.
On January 17, 1997 both parties signed the class action settlement agreement in Flores v. Reno, The Flores Settlement Agreement, which is binding on the defendants—the federal government agencies.

USSC Reno v. Flores 1993

In Reno v. Flores, the Supreme Court ruled on March 23, 1993 that while "detained children in question had a constitutionally protected interest in freedom from institutional confinement", the Court reversed the Court of Appeals' 1991 decision in Flores v. Meese because the Immigration and Naturalization Service regulation 8 CFR 242.24 in question, complied with the requirements of due process. The INS regulation—8 CFR 242.24—"generally authorized the release of a detained alien juvenile, in order of preference, to a parent, a legal guardian, or specified close adult relatives of the juvenile, unless the INS determined that detention was required to secure an appearance or to ensure the safety of the juvenile or others". This "meant that in limited circumstances" juveniles could be released "to another person who executed an agreement to care for the juvenile and to ensure the juvenile's attendance at future immigration proceedings". Juveniles who are not released would "generally require" a "suitable placement at a facility which, in accordance with the consent decree, had to meet specified care standards."
On March 23, 1993, on certiorari the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, voting 7–2 to reverse the lower court—the Court of Appeals. Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Byron White, Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and Clarence Thomas, held that the unaccompanied alien children had no constitutional right to be released to someone other than a close relative, nor to automatic review by an immigration judge. In an opinion by Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas, it was held that the INS policy—242.24—did not violate substantive due process under the Fifth Amendment. While lawyers for the plaintiffs alleged in a "novel" way that children have a fundamental right to liberty, in which a child who has "no available parent, close relative, or legal guardian, and for whom the government was responsible" has the right "to be placed in the custody of a willing and able private custodian rather than the custody of a government-operated or government-selected child care institution." The Court ruled that if that fundamental right existed, "it would presumably apply to state custody over orphaned and abandoned children as well." They ruled that "under the circumstances" "continued government custody was rationally connected to a government interest in promoting juveniles' welfare and was not punitive" and that "there was no constitutional need to meet even a more limited demand for an individualized hearing as to whether private placement would be in a juvenile's "best interests," so long as institutional custody was good enough." The Court held that the INS "did not violate procedural due process, under the Fifth Amendment, through failing to require the INS to determine in the case of each alien juvenile that detention in INS custody would better serve the juvenile's interests than release to some other "responsible adult," not providing for automatic review by an immigration judge of initial INS deportability and custody determinations, or failing to set a time period within which an immigration judge hearing, if requested, had to be held." 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." It held that the juveniles could be "detained pending deportation hearings pursuant" under 8 CFR § 242.24 which "provides for the release of detained minors only to their parents, close relatives, or legal guardians, except in unusual and compelling circumstances."
The Supreme Court justices said that in Reno v. Flores, most of the juveniles detained by INS and the Border Patrol at that time were "16 or 17 years old", and had "telephone contact with a responsible adult outside the INS--sometimes a legal services attorney". They said that due process was "satisfied by giving the detained alien juveniles the right to a hearing before an immigration judge" and that there was no proof at that time "that all of them are too young or too ignorant to exercise that right when the form asking them to assert or waive it is presented."
Justice Stevens, joined by Justice 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, and did not satisfy the federal constitutional demands of due process.