## Facts

- A nationwide class of noncitizen minors in immigration custody sought post-judgment enforcement of a settlement governing minors’ detention, release, and treatment.
- The settlement requires release of minors without unnecessary delay to approved custodians and, if detention continues, confinement in “safe and sanitary” conditions, generally in state-licensed child-care facilities.
- Plaintiffs submitted declarations and other evidence describing conditions in short-term border facilities, including overcrowding, cold temperatures, lack of bedding, inadequate food and water, and limited hygiene and toilet access.
- Plaintiffs alleged minors were not meaningfully advised of settlement-based rights, including rights related to release and communication.
- Plaintiffs alleged the government failed to make and document “continuous efforts” to release minors to eligible custodians, resulting in prolonged detention, sometimes in secure or unlicensed settings.
- Plaintiffs sought additional remedial measures, including independent oversight; defendants argued their written policies provided required protections and that they were in substantial compliance.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants violated the settlement’s requirement that detained minors be held in “safe and sanitary” conditions.
2. Whether defendants failed to adequately advise minors of rights required by the settlement.
3. Whether defendants failed to make and document “continuous efforts” to release minors without unnecessary delay, leading to prolonged detention.
4. Whether defendants violated the settlement through commingling with unrelated adults or interference with access to counsel.
5. What monitoring or structural relief, if any, was warranted to ensure compliance.

## Decision

- The court granted the motion to enforce in part and denied it in part.
- The court found defendants not in substantial compliance with the “safe and sanitary” requirement, based on evidence of inadequate food, water, hygiene, and temperature control.
- The court found defendants not in substantial compliance with requirements to advise minors of their rights and to make continuous, documented efforts to secure release.
- The court declined to find additional violations on the record presented regarding commingling with unrelated adults and interference with the right to counsel.
- The court ordered appointment of a Juvenile Coordinator within each relevant agency to collect information, monitor compliance, and provide periodic reporting, rather than imposing broader external monitorship.

## Legal Principles

- A binding settlement governing treatment of detained minors is enforceable through post-judgment motions when evidence shows noncompliance.
- “Safe and sanitary” conditions require provision of basic necessities, including potable water, edible food, hygiene, reasonable temperature control, and minimally adequate sleeping accommodations.
- Written policies do not establish compliance where credible evidence shows practices in custody do not meet required standards.
- “Continuous efforts” to release minors require active and documented steps to identify and vet eligible custodians; detention is not the default when release is reasonably available.
- Targeted structural relief may be ordered to address persistent compliance failures, including designated agency officials responsible for oversight and reporting.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the settlement’s core protections for detained minors, finding unsafe and unsanitary conditions and inadequate advisals and release efforts, and ordered agency-based monitoring through Juvenile Coordinators while denying broader relief on certain additional allegations.


Flores v. Sessions, 394 F. Supp. 3d 1041 (C.D. Cal. 2017)