{
  "id": "R45297",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R45297",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 603236,
      "date": "2018-09-17",
      "retrieved": "2019-08-12T22:19:54.090637",
      "title": "The \u201cFlores Settlement\u201d and Alien Families Apprehended at the U.S. Border: Frequently Asked Questions",
      "summary": "Reports of alien minors being separated from their parents at the U.S. border have raised questions about the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s (DHS\u2019s) authority to detain alien families together pending the aliens\u2019 removal proceedings, which may include consideration of claims for asylum and other forms of relief from removal. \nThe Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes\u2014and in some case requires\u2014DHS to detain aliens pending removal proceedings. However, neither the INA nor other federal laws specifically address when or whether alien family members must be detained together. DHS\u2019s options regarding the detention or release of alien families are significantly restricted by a binding settlement agreement from a case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California now called Flores v. Sessions. The \u201cFlores Settlement\u201d establishes a policy favoring the release of alien minors, including accompanied alien minors, and requires that those alien minors who are not released from government custody be transferred within a brief period to non-secure, state-licensed facilities. DHS indicates that few such facilities exist that can house adults and children together. Accordingly, 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. \nFollowing an executive order President Trump issued that addressed alien family separation, the Department of Justice filed a motion to modify the Flores Settlement to allow for the detention of alien families in unlicensed facilities for longer periods. The district court overseeing the settlement rejected that motion, much as it has rejected similar motions to modify the settlement filed by the government in recent years. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the earlier rulings but has not yet reviewed the most recent ruling.) In its most recent motion, the government has argued, among other things, that a preliminary injunction entered in a separate litigation, Ms. L v. ICE, which generally requires the government to reunite separated alien families and refrain from separating families going forward, supports a modification of the Flores Settlement to allow indefinite detention of alien minors alongside their parents.  \nOn a separate track, DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have announced that they intend to seek termination of the Flores Settlement through the promulgation of new regulations that, according to the agencies, would adopt the substantive terms of the agreement with certain modifications. Significantly, the proposed regulations would allow DHS to detain families together until immigration proceedings were completed by creating an alternative federal licensing scheme for family residential centers. That federal scheme would impose facility standards that purport to mimic the standards set forth in the Flores Settlement, which calls for the exclusive use of state-licensed facilities for the detention of minors. A legal dispute seems likely to arise over whether the proposed regulations adequately implement the Flores Settlement, including whether the regulations are consistent with the agreement\u2019s general policy favoring the release of minors from immigration custody.\nCongress, for its part, could largely override the Flores Settlement legislatively, although constitutional considerations relating to the rights of aliens in immigration custody may inform the permissible scope and effect of such legislation.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45297",
          "sha1": "0c99e0321a6e07c3c822d39ce841b22a4b8d9895",
          "filename": "files/20180917_R45297_0c99e0321a6e07c3c822d39ce841b22a4b8d9895.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45297",
          "sha1": "fd93849b885abc20391dc1f65969cf437f760f7f",
          "filename": "files/20180917_R45297_fd93849b885abc20391dc1f65969cf437f760f7f.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4791,
          "name": "Asylees, Refugees, & Other Humanitarian Concerns"
        },
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4886,
          "name": "Unauthorized Migrants & Immigration Enforcement & Removal"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 584461,
      "date": "2018-08-28",
      "retrieved": "2018-08-31T13:45:00.212417",
      "title": "The \u201cFlores Settlement\u201d and Alien Families Apprehended at the U.S. Border: Frequently Asked Questions",
      "summary": "Reports of alien minors being separated from their parents at the U.S. border have raised questions about the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s (DHS\u2019s) authority to detain alien families together pending the aliens\u2019 removal proceedings, which may include consideration of claims for asylum and other forms of relief from removal. \nThe Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) authorizes\u2014and in some case requires\u2014DHS to detain aliens pending removal proceedings. However, neither the INA nor other federal laws specifically address when or whether alien family members must be detained together. DHS\u2019s options regarding the detention or release of alien families are significantly restricted by a binding settlement agreement from a case in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California now called Flores v. Sessions. The \u201cFlores Settlement\u201d establishes a policy favoring the release of alien minors, including accompanied alien minors, and requires that those alien minors who are not released from government custody be transferred within a brief period to non-secure, state-licensed facilities. DHS indicates that few such facilities exist that can house adults and children together. Accordingly, 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. \nFollowing an executive order President Trump issued that addressed alien family separation, the Department of Justice filed a motion to modify the Flores Settlement to allow for the detention of alien families in unlicensed facilities for longer periods. The district court overseeing the settlement rejected that motion, much as it has rejected similar motions to modify the settlement filed by the government in recent years. (The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the earlier rulings but has not yet reviewed the most recent ruling.) In its most recent motion, the government has argued, among other things, that a preliminary injunction entered in a separate litigation, Ms. L v. ICE, which generally requires the government to reunite separated alien families and refrain from separating families going forward, supports a modification of the Flores Settlement to allow indefinite detention of alien minors alongside their parents.  \nCongress, for its part, could largely override the Flores Settlement legislatively, although constitutional considerations relating to the rights of aliens in immigration custody may inform the permissible scope and effect of such legislation.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R45297",
          "sha1": "211d6a2fb61a71f537cd42c6405ce6b9f1ea67c9",
          "filename": "files/20180828_R45297_211d6a2fb61a71f537cd42c6405ce6b9f1ea67c9.html",
          "images": {}
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R45297",
          "sha1": "826ef8fbada382f915d9656dc2b692ad47de0c96",
          "filename": "files/20180828_R45297_826ef8fbada382f915d9656dc2b692ad47de0c96.pdf",
          "images": {}
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "IBCList",
          "id": 4886,
          "name": "Unauthorized Migrants & Immigration Enforcement & Removal"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}