Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 1 of 23 Page ID
#:17535

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
COLIN KISOR
Deputy Director
SARAH B. FABIAN
Senior Litigation Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Immigration Litigation
District Court Section
Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20442
Telephone: (202) 532-4824
Fax: (202) 616-8962

14
15

Attorneys for Defendants

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18
19
20

JENNY LISETTE FLORES; et al.,
Plaintiffs,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III,
Attorney General of the
United States; et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 85-4544-DMG
DEFENDANTS’ MEMORANDUM OF
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM
THE FLORES SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 2 of 23 Page ID
#:17536

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION

When the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) apprehends a

3
4
5
6

family with minor children illegally entering the United States outside a port of
entry, it traditionally has three options to choose from: (1) keep the family
together by placing the family members at an appropriate residential facility during

7
8

the pendency of their immigration proceedings; (2) separate the family by

9

detaining the parents and transferring the children to U.S. Health and Human

10
11
12
13

Services (“HHS”) custody; or (3) provide the family with a Notice to Appear for
removal proceedings, release the family members from custody into the interior of
the United States, and accept the now-common reality that families frequently fail

14
15
16

to appear at the required proceedings, thus remaining illegally in the United States.
Only the first option accomplishes the dual goals of enforcing federal law

17
18

and keeping families together. Accordingly, in 2015 the Government came to this

19

Court to explain the importance of family detention to both enforcing the

20
21
22
23

immigration laws while avoiding family separation. See Defendants’ Motion to
Modify Settlement Agreement, ECF 120 (Feb. 27, 2015). Unfortunately, however,
this Court’s construction of the Flores Settlement Agreement eliminates the

24
25

practical availability of family detention across the nation, thus creating a powerful

26

incentive for aliens to enter this country with children in violation of our criminal

27
28

and immigration laws and without a valid claim to be admitted to the United
1

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 3 of 23 Page ID
#:17537

1

States, as the Government previously explained. See Declaration of Tae D.

2

Johnson, ECF 120-1 at 2 ¶ 7 (Feb. 27, 2015).

3
4
5
6

Under current law and legal rulings, including this Court's, it is not possible
for the U.S. government to detain families together during the pendency of their
immigration proceedings. It cannot be done. One reason those families “decide to

7
8

make the dangerous journey to illegally enter the United States is that they expect

9

to be released from custody.” Id. (emphasis added). Following the July 2015

10
11
12
13

ruling, there was a 3 to 5-fold increase in the number of illegal family border
crossings. This surge is not a mere coincidence, it is the direct result of the
message sent to those seeking illegal entry: we will not detain and deport you.

14
15
16

These realities have precipitated a destabilizing migratory crisis: tens of
thousands of families are embarking on the dangerous journey to the United States,

17
18

often through smuggling arrangements, and then crossing the border illegally in

19

violation of our federal criminal law. And as the Government has previously

20
21
22
23

stated, once these families are released into the interior, a vast segment fail to
appear at their immigration hearings. See Declaration of Thomas Homan, ECF
184-1, at 14 ¶ 30 (Aug. 6, 2015) (in 2014-2015, out of 41,297 cases involving

24
25

families, 11,976 had already resulted in in abstentia removal orders). This entire

26

journey and ultimate crossing puts children and families at risk, and violates

27
28
2

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 4 of 23 Page ID
#:17538

1

criminal laws enacted by Congress to protect the border. Those illegal crossings

2

must stop.

3

Since 2015, the number of families illegally crossing the southwest border

4
5
6

has increased markedly, well beyond the high levels that led to the Government’s
request for modification in 2015. Undeniably the limitation on the option of

7
8

detaining families together and the marked increase of families illegally crossing

9

the border are linked. Illegal family crossings and apprehensions that were in the

10
11
12
13

range of 1,000 to 3,000 per month in early 2015 dramatically increased to a range
of 5,000 to 9,000 per month in the months after July 2015, when this Court ruled to
prevent the Government from detaining families together.1

14

In the absence of congressional action addressing border security and

15
16

immigration, the President has directed the Executive Branch to take three

17
18

immediate steps to ameliorate the crisis. First, the President has directed the

19

Secretary of Homeland Security to retain custody of family units through any

20
21
22
23

criminal improper entry or immigration proceedings, to the extent permitted by
law. Executive Order, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family
Separation §§ 1, 3, 2018 WL 3046068 (June 20, 2018).2 Second, the President has

24
25
26
27
28

1

See https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompaniedchildren/fy-2016.
2
Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/affordingcongress-opportunity-address-family-separation/.
3

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 5 of 23 Page ID
#:17539

1

directed the Department of Justice to promptly seek relief from this Court from the

2

provisions of the Flores Settlement Agreement that “would permit the Secretary [of

3
4
5
6

Homeland Security] . . . to detain alien families together through the pendency of
criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration
proceedings.” Id. § 3(e). And the President has directed federal agencies to

7
8

marshal resources to support family custody and to speed up the resolution time for

9

immigration cases involving family units by “prioritiz[ing] the adjudication of

10
11
12
13

cases involving detained families.” Id. §§ 3(c), 3(d), 4.
This crisis at the border regarding illegal family crossings mandates that the
Government take action. Accordingly, we ask for immediate interim relief from

14
15
16

this Court that would permit family detention during immigration proceedings.
This Court should provide limited emergency relief in two respects. First, the

17
18

Court should provide a limited exemption from its construction of the Flores

19

Settlement Agreement’s release provisions so that ICE may detain alien minors

20
21
22
23

who have arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in ICE family
residential facilities. Second, the Court should determine that the Agreement’s
state licensure requirement does not apply to ICE family residential facilities.

24
25

These changes are justified by several material changes in circumstances—chief

26

among them the ongoing and worsening influx of families unlawfully entering the

27
28

United States at the southwest border.
4

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 6 of 23 Page ID
#:17540

1
2

The Government requests that this Court provide a prompt hearing relating
to its request. The government has moved expeditiously here given the President’s

3
4
5
6

direction, but is prepared to supplement this request with further factual
information in advance of that hearing or at a time requested by the Court,
including updating information submitted in connection with the Government’s

7
8

2015 request relating to the circumstances at ICE family residential centers. The

9

Government is also open to promptly discussing other options with Plaintiffs and

10
11
12
13

the Court that will permit families to be kept together at residential facilities during
the time needed to complete immigration processing. This Court, given its
ongoing exercise of jurisdiction over the Flores Settlement Agreement, has the

14
15
16

authority and responsibility to resolve these growing concerns by immediately
permitting family detention.

17
18

II.

BACKGROUND

19

In 2015, the Government filed a motion to modify the Flores Settlement

20
21
22
23

Agreement in order to exclude accompanied minors from the Agreement and
permit use of ICE family residential centers during immigration proceedings,
which would have allowed the Government to exercise this option to keep families

24
25

together to the greatest extent possible during removal proceedings. See

26

Defendants’ Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement, ECF 120 (Feb. 27, 2015).

27
28

In that filing, the Government explained that a “practice of general release
5

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 7 of 23 Page ID
#:17541

1

encourages parents to subject their children to this dangerous journey in order to

2

avoid their own detention” and puts “unrelated children at increased risk of

3
4
5
6

trafficking by smugglers who bring them across the border in an attempt to avoid
detention by representing themselves as a family unit.” Declaration of Tae D.
Johnson, ECF 120-1 at 5 ¶ 11 (Feb. 27, 2015).

7
8
9

In 2015, the Government apprised this Court that a result of not amending
the Flores Settlement Agreement could be the separation of families. The

10
11
12
13

Government explained that DHS required “additional, family-appropriate
immigration detention capacity to hold families apprehended at the border, without
requiring separation of parents from their children.” Defendants’ Opposition to

14
15
16

Motion to Enforce, ECF 121 at 1 (Feb. 27, 2015) (emphasis added). The
Government further explained that Plaintiffs’ opposition to family detention

17
18

units—based on an agreement that arose out of litigation that was limited to

19

unaccompanied children—“threatens family unity and ignores the significant

20
21
22
23

growth in the number of children . . . apprehended while unlawfully crossing the
southwest border” with and without parents. Id. at 2. The Government urged
against an application of the Flores Settlement Agreement that would “mak[e] it

24
25

impossible for ICE to house families at ICE family residential centers, and to

26

instead require ICE to separate accompanied children from their parents or legal

27
28

guardians.” Id. at 17 (emphasis added).
6

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 8 of 23 Page ID
#:17542

1
2

This Court denied that motion in July 2015, Order, ECF 177 (July 24, 2015),
and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that denial on July 6, 2016, holding that this Court

3
4
5
6

had not abused its discretion. Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 909-10 (9th Cir.
2016). In so ruling, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the Government’s request “to
exempt an entire category of migrants from the Settlement” was not “a ‘suitably

7
8

tailored’ response to the change in circumstances.” Id. at 910. The Ninth Circuit

9

acknowledged, however, that “relaxing certain requirements” might be appropriate

10
11
12
13

where a showing of changed circumstances has been made. Id. And in the face of
the Government’s warning that family separation could result from this Court’s
decision, the Ninth Circuit specifically envisioned separating parents from their

14
15
16

children under the terms of the Agreement – releasing the children while
maintaining detention of their parents. Flores, 828 F.3d at 908-09; see Appellants

17
18
19

Ninth Circuit Brief at 61, No. 15-56434 (Jan. 15, 2016).
The circumstances created by this application of the Agreement have

20
21
22
23

become untenable. After a significant reduction in family units crossing the border
in FY 2015 when the Government was holding families together, see ECF 184-1 at
8 ¶ 17, family crossings away from legal ports of entry nearly doubled in FY 2016,

24
25

as measured by apprehensions. Such apprehensions have only increased annually

26

since that time, except for a brief drop at the start of 2017—including an increase

27
28

this year that, when projected to cover the full year, represents a 17% increase over
7

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 9 of 23 Page ID
#:17543

1

the illegal family entries in 2017 and a 30% increase in illegal family entries in

2

2014, the year that prompted the Government’s prior filing with this Court. And

3
4
5
6

the increase in family entries over FY 2015 is 123%, from 39,838 in FY 2015 to a
number that, when projected to cover the full year, is 88,670 for FY 2018.3 The
year-to-year data follows:

7
8

SW Border Family Apprehensions:

9

Fiscal Year

Family Apprehensions

10

2012

11,116

11

2013

14,885

12

2014

68,445

13

2015

39,838

14

2016

77,674

15

2017

75,622

2018 (8 months)

59,113 (12 month projection: 88,670).4

16
17
18

The month-to-month figures show the sharp rise in family border crossings

19
20

during 2015—from a figure in the range of 1,600 to 4,000 before this Court’s July

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The simple projection is based on the assumption that illegal crossers for the
remaining four months will arrive at the same rate as in the prior eight months, a
projection that does not account for seasonal variations.
4
See https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration (2018);
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration-fy2017 (2017);
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompaniedchildren/fy-2016 (2012-2016). In addition, 34,650 family units who presented at
ports of entry on the southwest border this fiscal year were determined to be
inadmissible. Id.
3

8

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 10 of 23 Page ID
#:17544

1

2015 decision, to a figure ranging from 5,000 to nearly 9,000 in the months after

2

the decision:5

3
4
5

III.

APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS

6

The Government invokes Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5) and

7
8

60(b)(6) in support of its request to modify the Flores Settlement Agreement.

9

A.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5)

10

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(5), the Court may relieve a

11
12

party from “a final judgment, order, or proceeding [if] applying [the prior action]

13
14
15
16

prospectively is no longer equitable.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(5); see Frew ex. rel.
Frew v. Hawkins, 540 U.S. 431, 441 (2004); McGrath v. Potash, 199 F.2d 166,
167-68 (D.C. Cir. 1952). The party seeking relief “bears the burden of establishing

17
18

that a significant change in circumstances warrants revision of the decree.” Rufo v.

19

Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992). That burden may be

20
21

met by showing “a significant change either in factual conditions or in law.” Id. at

22

384; see also Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009) (“[T]he passage of time

23
24
25

frequently brings about changed circumstances—changes in the nature of the
underlying problem, changes in governing law or its interpretation by the courts,

26
27
28

5

See https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-border-unaccompaniedchildren/fy-2016.
9

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 11 of 23 Page ID
#:17545

1

and new policy insights—that warrant reexamination of the original judgment.”).

2

A motion under this section must be brought “within a reasonable time.” Fed. R.

3
4
5
6

Civ. Proc. 60(c)(1).
The Flores Settlement Agreement is an example of what the Supreme Court
has termed “institutional reform litigation.” Horne, 557 U.S. at 447 (quoting Rufo,

7
8

502 U.S. at 380). A district court’s ability to modify a decree in response to

9

changed circumstances is heightened in institutional reform litigation. Rufo, 502

10
11
12
13

U.S. at 380. “Because such decrees often remain in place for extended periods of
time, the likelihood of significant changes occurring during the life of the decree is
increased.” Id. And “the public interest is a particularly significant reason for

14
15
16

applying a flexible modification standard in institutional reform litigation because
such decrees ‘reach beyond the parties involved directly in the suit and impact on

17
18

the public’s right to the sound and efficient operation of its institutions.’” Id. at

19

381 (quoting Heath v. De Courcy, 888 F.2d 1105, 1109 (6th Cir. 1989)).

20
21
22
23

B.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) allows a Court to relieve a party
from “a final judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . any other reason that justifies

24
25

relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(6). The rule generally is “used sparingly as an

26

equitable remedy to prevent manifest injustice.” United States v. Alpine Land &

27
28

Reservoir Co., 984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir. 1993). The frustration of
10

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 12 of 23 Page ID
#:17546

1

performance of a settlement agreement may provide reason to grant a motion under

2

this Rule. Stratman v. Babbitt, 42 F.3d 1402, 1994 WL 681071, at *4 (9th Cir.

3
4
5
6

Dec. 5, 1994). A motion under this section must be brought “within a reasonable
time.” Alpine, 984 F.2d at 1049 (quoting In re Pacific Far East Lines, Inc., 889
F.2d 242, 249 (9th Cir. 1989)).

7
8

IV.

ARGUMENT

9

This Court should provide limited emergency relief to enable the

10
11
12
13

Government to keep alien families together. First, the Court should provide a
limited exemption from its interpretation of the Flores Settlement Agreement’s
release provisions so that U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) may

14
15
16

detain alien minors who have arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in
ICE family residential facilities. Second, the Court should exempt ICE family

17
18

residential facilities from the Agreement’s state licensure requirement. These

19

changes are justified by several material changes in circumstances—including the

20
21
22
23

worsening influx of families unlawfully entering the United States at the southwest
border.
The Government does not, at this time, ask to be relieved from the

24
25

Agreement’s substantive requirements on the conditions of detention in these

26

facilities. And it does not, at this time, ask to be relieved from any other provision

27
28

of the Flores Settlement Agreement that otherwise affects accompanied (or
11

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 13 of 23 Page ID
#:17547

1

unaccompanied) minors. Instead, in this motion, the Government asks for limited

2

relief that would promote an important, widely shared goal that has spanned

3
4
5
6

administrations: keeping families together while effectively carrying out removal
proceedings required by immigration law.
This Court has clear authority to grant these exemptions. It should exercise

7
8

that authority to help keep families together. The Government seeks this

9

emergency relief on an ex parte basis, to enable the Government both to maintain a

10
11
12
13
14

secure southwest border while also avoiding family separations.
A.

Significant Changes in Circumstances—Including the Ongoing,
Worsening Influx of Family Units on the Southwest Border—
Show that this Court Should Modify the Flores Settlement
Agreement.

15
16
17
18

This Court should modify the Flores Settlement Agreement in light of
“significant change[s] in circumstances.” Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383 (modification of a
consent decree is appropriate when “a significant change in circumstances warrants

19
20

revision of the decree”). This changed-circumstances standard is met where there

21

have been “changes in circumstances that were beyond the defendants’ control and

22
23
24
25
26

were not contemplated by the court or the parties when the decree was entered.”
Id. at 380-81 (discussing Philadelphia Welfare Rights Org. v. Shapp, 602 F.2d
1114, 1119-21 (3d Cir. 1979)). Several significant changes satisfy these standards.

27
28
12

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 14 of 23 Page ID
#:17548

1
2

First, since the Agreement was entered, the number of persons illegally
crossing the border in family units has dramatically increased and has materially

3
4
5
6

changed from what the parties or Court could reasonably have contemplated. That
increase has consisted in significant measure of children who are accompanied by
their parents. Although the Ninth Circuit previously found that the parties

7
8

“expressly anticipated an influx” when the Agreement was signed, Flores, 828

9

F.3d at 909, nothing suggests that the parties anticipated that this increase would

10
11
12
13

consist largely of children who were accompanied by their parents. Indeed, the
Agreement arose from litigation solely about unaccompanied minors. A
modification is warranted to account for the important, widely shared interest in

14
15
16

keeping families together.
The current situation is untenable. As the Government explained in 2015,

17
18

aliens cross the border illegally relying on promises from traffickers that “they will

19

not be detained but instead will be released.” Declaration of Tae D. Johnson, ECF

20
21
22
23

120-1 at 2 ¶ 7. (Feb. 27, 2015). Such an incentive structure increases the chances
that an alien without a valid claim for relief in the United States will be able to
remain here illegally or during lengthy removal proceedings. As the Government

24
25

explained in 2015, “detaining these individuals dispels such expectations, and

26

deters others from unlawfully coming to the United States.” Id. at 4 ¶ 8..

27
28

Moreover, many of these aliens are smuggled for “significant fees” and those
13

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 15 of 23 Page ID
#:17549

1

“payments are then used by cartels to fund additional illicit and dangerous

2

activities in the United States and Mexico.” Id. ¶ 9.

The more constrained DHS’s

3
4
5
6

ability to detain families together during the period necessary to promptly conduct
immigration proceedings, the more likely it is that families will attempt illegal
border crossing. As the Government explained in 2015, a “practice of general

7
8

release encourages parents to subject their children to this dangerous journey in

9

order to avoid their own detention” and puts “unrelated children at increased risk

10
11
12
13

of trafficking by smugglers who bring them across the border in an attempt to
avoid detention by representing themselves as a family unit.” Id. at 5 ¶ 11.
Second, neither the parties nor the Court anticipated that, when the

14
15
16

Government first began applying the Agreement to accompanied minors, as
required by this Court’s order, that shift in practice would lead to the current

17
18

situation that incentivizes a dangerous journey by family units with young

19

children, risky illegal entry attempts by families with children, and trafficking of

20
21
22
23

families through Mexico in a manner contrary to the intent of asylum treaties. As
explained above, the number of family units crossing the border illegally has
increased dramatically since the Government sought relief in 2015—by 30% since

24
25

the 2014 influx that led the Government to seek relief from this Court. Without the

26

option to keep families together during the pendency of removal proceedings, the

27
28

Government must choose between acquiescing to and incentivizing illegal
14

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 16 of 23 Page ID
#:17550

1

immigration by releasing all family groups, or detaining the parents but separating

2

the family (as a result of the Agreement, as interpreted). These are precisely the

3
4
5
6

sorts of changes that warrant “relax[ation] [of] certain requirements” of the
Agreement. Flores, 828 F.3d at 910.
Third, class-action litigation has been filed challenging the legality of family

7
8

separation. In one case, the plaintiffs seek class-wide relief requiring DHS to

9

discontinue family separation. See Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs

10
11
12
13

Enforcement, Motion, No. 18-428, ECF No. 48-1, at 26 (S.D. Cal.); see also
Mejia-Mejia v. ICE, No. 18-1445, Complaint ¶ 4 (D.D.C. filed June 19, 2018) (“If,
however, the government feels compelled to continue detaining these parents and

14
15
16

young children, it should at a minimum detain them together in one of its
immigration family detention centers”). Yet in declining the Government’s

17
18

previous request to amend the Flores Settlement Agreement, the Ninth Circuit held

19

that family separation is permissible under the Agreement, and reversed this

20
21
22
23

Court’s holding that the Agreement required the release of both the parents and
children to maintain family unity. See Flores, 828 F.3d at 910 (Flores Settlement
Agreement “provides no affirmative release rights for parents”). It cannot be the

24
25

case—nor is it consistent with immigration law—that the Government’s only

26

option, when facing a crisis of illegal border crossings, is simply to permit such

27
28

illegality by releasing all aliens after apprehension with full knowledge that later
15

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 17 of 23 Page ID
#:17551

1

voluntary appearance for removal proceedings is increasingly rare. This point was

2

true when the Government made it in 2015, and it remains true today.

3
4
5
6

Finally, the President has identified this issue as a significant problem
warranting focused attention throughout the Executive Branch. See Executive
Order, Affording Congress an Opportunity to Address Family Separation (June 20,

7
8

2018). In doing so, he has directed significant resources to provide adequate

9

facilities where families can be together, and the prioritization of their immigration

10
11
12
13

proceedings to minimize the amount of detention. Id. § 4 (the “Attorney General
shall, to the extent practicable, prioritize the adjudication of cases involving
detained families”). Those efforts justify renewed consideration of family custody

14
15
16
17
18
19

under the Flores Settlement Agreement.
B.

Two Narrow Modifications to the Flores Settlement Agreement
Are Warranted to Address the Significant Changes in
Circumstances.

Given the circumstances set forth above, two “tailored” modifications to the

20
21
22
23

Agreement are warranted at this time. Rufo, 502 U.S. at 383 (once the moving
party has established that modification is warranted, “the court should consider
whether the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed

24
25
26

circumstance”).
First, the Court should provide the Government an exemption from

27
28

Paragraph 14 of the Agreement so that children may be placed in ICE custody with
16

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 18 of 23 Page ID
#:17552

1

their parent or guardian, rather than be released to another individual or placed into

2

HHS custody. See Flores Agreement ¶ 14 (requiring INS to “release a minor from

3
4
5
6

its custody” in certain circumstances). So long as paragraph 14 of the Agreement
is applied as written to accompanied children, ICE is required to separate parents
or guardians from their children in situations where the law requires detention or

7
8

ICE or an immigration judge determines that a parent or guardian should be

9

detained to prevent flight or danger to the community during removal proceedings.

10
11
12
13

Exempting ICE family residential centers from this requirement on the limited
basis proposed by the Government will permit DHS to more effectively prevent
large numbers of alien families from illegally entering the United States through

14
15
16

the southwest border, while also allowing families to stay together in specially
designed facilities during their criminal and removal proceedings.

17
18
19

Second, the Court should provide an exemption for ICE family residential
centers from the licensing provisions of the Agreement. Those provisions require

20
21
22
23

that minors “be placed temporarily in a licensed program.” Agreement ¶ 19;
Exhibit 1 (laying out the minimum standards for conditions in facilities holding
minors). A “licensed program” is one “that is licensed by an appropriate State

24
25

agency to provide residential, group, or foster care services for dependent

26

children.” Agreement ¶ 6. This exemption is necessary because of ongoing and

27
28

unresolved disputes over the ability of States to license these types of facilities that
17

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 19 of 23 Page ID
#:17553

1

house both adults and children. Exemption from this requirement is tailored to

2

address the immediate influx with which the Government is currently dealing,

3
4
5
6

while providing time for ongoing efforts in Congress to address these issues. And
the Government does not now object to the requirement that ICE family residential
facilities would continue to meet the standards laid out in Exhibit 1 to the

7
8

Agreement.

9

These are narrow, targeted requests aimed at addressing a specific and

10
11
12
13

growing problem. Notably, while the Government continues to believe that it was
incorrect to hold that the Flores Settlement Agreement applies to accompanied
minors, the Government does not seek here to “exempt an entire category of

14
15
16

migrants from the Settlement.” Flores, 828 F.3d at 910. Rather, at this time, the
Government seeks only to permit family detention under the Agreement given the

17
18

ongoing severe influx of family units at the border.6 The Government does not

19

seek through this motion to exempt accompanied minors—or any other group—

20
21
22

from all of the settlement provisions. The two requested exemptions are the sort of
“relax[ation] [of] certain requirements” of the Agreement that the Ninth Circuit

23
24
25
26
27
28

6

The Government continues to disagree that the Flores Settlement Agreement
covers accompanied minors and with other aspects of this Court’s rulings
interpreting the Agreement, and preserves its arguments in the event of further
review .
18

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 20 of 23 Page ID
#:17554

1

invited the Government to seek. Id. Relaxing these requirements would permit

2

family units to be kept together in appropriate facilities.

3
4
5
6

The equities and human considerations strongly support this narrow relief.
Family detention during the pendency of removal proceedings has been a
continuing goal of DHS for a considerable time, and across administrations. DHS

7
8

has viewed this authority as critical to addressing the growing influx of family

9

units illegally crossing the southwest border. The inability to employ this option

10
11
12
13

creates a continued incentive for parents to bring their children on the dangerous
journey to the United States and to enter the country illegally, rather than at ports
of entry. Entering illegally provides two opportunities to remain in the United

14
15
16

States for a family with no valid asylum claim—either if the family evades
detection entirely or if the family is caught and then released, the family unit

17
18

disappears. Proposed legislation in Congress seeks to address the issues created by

19

the limitations that the Agreement, as it has been interpreted, places on the

20
21
22
23

Government’s ability to use ICE family residential centers. This process is fluid,
but the emergency currently existing on the southwest border requires immediate
action. This Court can take such action to help address this urgent problem.

24
25
26

*

*

*

The Government is prepared to make a more thorough showing, if

27
28

necessary, in support of this request to amend the Flores Settlement Agreement.
19

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 21 of 23 Page ID
#:17555

1

The Government respectfully requests a prompt hearing on its request for

2

immediate relief, together with any additional proceedings the Court believes

3
4
5
6

appropriate.
V.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Government respectfully asks this Court to grant

7
8

limited emergency relief that would: (1) exempt DHS from the Flores Settlement

9

Agreement’s release provisions so that ICE may detain alien minors who have

10
11
12
13

arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in ICE family residential
facilities; and (2) exempt ICE family residential facilities from the Agreement’s
state licensure requirement. The Government is not asking to be relieved from the

14
15
16

substantive language of the Agreement on the conditions of detention in these
facilities. The Government asks for immediate relief, along with a schedule to

17
18

allow the parties to more fully address the issues raised by this request.

19
20

DATED:

June 21, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

CHAD A. READLER
Acting Assistant Attorney General
/s/ August E. Flentje
AUGUST E. FLENTJE
Special Counsel to the Assistant Attorney
General
Civil Division

28
20

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 22 of 23 Page ID
#:17556

1
2
3
4
5
6

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY
Director
COLIN KISOR
Deputy Director
/s/ Jeffrey S. Robins
JEFFREY S. ROBINS
Assistant Director

7
8
9
10
11
12
13

SARAH B. FABIAN
Senior Litigation Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Immigration Litigation
District Court Section
Box 868, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20442
Telephone: (202) 532-4824
Fax: (202) 616-8962

14
15
16
17

Attorneys for Defendants

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21

 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 435-1 Filed 06/21/18 Page 23 of 23 Page ID
#:17557

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1
2

I hereby certify that on June 21, 2018, I served the foregoing pleading on all

3
4

counsel of record by means of the District Clerk’s CM/ECF electronic filing

5

system.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

/s/ August E. Flentje
August E. Flentje
Attorney for Defendants