## Facts

- A nationwide class action challenged federal policies and conditions for detaining noncitizen minors in immigration custody.
- The litigation ended in a 1997 settlement agreement setting nationwide standards for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in immigration custody, including:
  - a presumption favoring release of minors; and
  - if not released, placement in the least restrictive setting appropriate to the minor’s age and special needs, generally in licensed, non-secure facilities.
- The agreement defined “minor” as any person under 18 detained in immigration legal custody, without distinguishing between accompanied and unaccompanied children.
- After the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, its components assumed immigration custody functions and remained bound by the settlement.
- In 2014–2015, the government expanded family detention facilities and held children with parents for extended periods in facilities that were not licensed as required by the settlement.
- The government asserted the settlement applied only to unaccompanied minors and therefore did not constrain family detention practices.
- The class moved to enforce the settlement; the district court held the settlement covered accompanied and unaccompanied minors and further interpreted the agreement to require the government generally to release accompanying parents when releasing children, subject to limited exceptions.
- The government appealed the enforcement order and the denial of its motion to modify the settlement.

## Issues

1. Whether the settlement agreement applies to all minors in immigration custody, including accompanied minors, or only to unaccompanied minors.
2. Whether the settlement can be interpreted to require the government to release accompanying parents when releasing a child.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the government’s request to modify the settlement based on changed circumstances.

## Decision

- The court affirmed that the settlement unambiguously applies to both accompanied and unaccompanied minors.
- The court reversed the district court’s interpretation insofar as it created affirmative release rights for parents or other accompanying adults.
- The court affirmed the denial of the government’s motion to modify the settlement.
- The enforcement order was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate ruling.

## Legal Principles

- Consent decrees and settlement agreements are construed under ordinary contract interpretation principles, guided primarily by the text and structure of the agreement.
- Where an agreement defines “minor” broadly and contains no accompanied/unaccompanied distinction, courts will not read such a limitation into the agreement.
- The Flores settlement establishes minimum, nationwide standards for minors in immigration custody, including a preference for release and, when detention is necessary, placement in appropriately licensed, non-secure facilities.
- Courts may enforce the obligations owed to the certified class but may not create new rights for non-class members absent clear contractual language.
- Modification of a consent decree requires a showing of significant changed circumstances making compliance unworkable or inconsistent with law; operational or policy difficulties do not alone compel modification, and review is deferential to the district court’s discretion.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that the Flores settlement protects all detained minors, including those held with parents, requiring compliance with its release and licensed-placement standards for children, but it does not confer independent rights on parents to be released alongside their children; the district court’s refusal to modify the settlement was upheld.


Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2016)