Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:18113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 MICHAEL N. FEUER, SBN 111529 City Attorney JAMES P. CLARK, SBN 64780 LEELA A. KAPUR, SBN 125548 VALERIE L. FLORES, SBN 138572 MICHAEL DUNDAS, SBN 226930 200 North Main St., City Hall East Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90012 mike.dundas@lacity.org Telephone: (213) 978-8130 Facsimile: (213) 978-8312 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae City of Los Angeles 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 13 14 15 JENNY LISETTE FLORES, et al., 16 Plaintiffs, 17 18 v. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:85-cv-4544-DMG BRIEF OF CITY OF LOS ANGELES, CITY OF CHICAGO, CITY OF NEW YORK, AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AS AMICI CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM THE FLORES SETTLEMENT Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:18114 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................... ii 4 STATEMENT OF INTEREST............................................................................ 1  5 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 5  6 I.  DEFENDANTS ARE UNABLE TO MEET THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE SOUTHWEST BORDER TO WARRANT REVISION OF THE SETTLEMENT. ........................................................................................... 5  II.  THE STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENT IN THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT IS CRITICAL TO ENSURING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PLAINTIFF CHILDREN. ................................................................................................. 7  7 8 9 10 11 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 10  12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:18115 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Page(s) CASES Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. 2016) .................................................................. 6 Horne v. Flores, 557 U.S. 433 (2009)................................................................................. 5 Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, No. 18-cv-0428 (DMS) (MDD), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107365 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018) ........................................................... 9 Rufo v. Inmates of the Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992)......................................................................... 5, 6, 7 Souza v. Sessions, No. 1:18-cv-04412 (MSS) ECF Dkt. # 23 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2018) ........................................................................ 3 Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000)................................................................................... 9 16 17 18 19 20 21 OTHER AUTHORITIES Bermudez, Esmeralda, Children separated from parents arrive in L.A., but frustrated community gets few answers, L.A. Times (June 21, 2018) ............................................. 8 City of Los Angeles Personnel Data ..................................................... 1 22 23 24 Goodman, David J., (Now Hiring: Under De Blasio, New York’s Government Grows to Record Level), N.Y. Times (Oct. 11, 2016) ............................................................................. 3 25 26 27 28 ii Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:18116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 King, Miriam, Ruggles, Steven, and Warren, J. Robert, 2016 Current Population Survey by the American Immigration Council, using IPUMS-CPS. Sarah Flood, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0 [dataset] (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 2017) .................................................... 1 Moreno, Barry, Children of Ellis Island, Arcadia Publishing (2005) ................................................................................... 4 New York City Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, State of our Immigrant City: Annual Report March 2018 ......................................................................................................... 3 Robbins, Liz, (Hundreds of separated children have quietly been sent to New York), N.Y. Times (June 20, 2018) ....................................................................................................... 8 Statement by Homer Venters, MD, Physicians for Human Rights Director of Programs, on June 21, 2018 ..................... 10 U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement - Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by County FY16 .............................................. 2, 4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates...............................................................passim U.S. Census Bureau, Detailed Languages Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Older: 2009-2013 ................................................................ 1 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistical report titled: United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016 ............................................ 6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement - Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by County FY17, Updated: May 25, 2018 ................................................................................................... 4 28 iii Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:18117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 U.S. Department of Homeland Security OIG Report (OIG-18-67), ICE’s Inspections and Monitoring of Detention Facilities Do Not Lead to Sustained Compliance or Systemic Improvements (June 26, 2018) ................................................................................................................. 9 U.S. Department of State, 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report (June 28, 2018) ........................................................................ 10 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, Office of Admissions – Refugee Processing Center (State Department Refugee Data) ................................................................................................... 1, 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 iv Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 6 of 17 Page ID #:18118 STATEMENT OF INTEREST 1 The City of Los Angeles, City of Chicago, City of New York and 2 3 City and County of San Francisco respectfully submit this proposed 4 brief, as amici curiae, in opposition to Defendants’ ex parte application 5 for relief from the Flores settlement agreement. This litigation is of utmost importance to amici. At least 1.5 6 7 million Los Angeles residents are themselves immigrants.1 Nearly 8 900,000 of those, 22% of the city’s entire population, were born either in 9 Mexico or Central America.2 The City of Los Angeles is home to 10 residents from more than 135 foreign countries, and 185 languages are 11 spoken here.3 Some 40.2% of business owners in Los Angeles are 12 immigrants.4 And the City, itself, employs approximately 10,000 13 foreign-born workers in its various offices and departments.5 The city’s economic and cultural success derives directly from its 14 15 openness to welcoming diversity. In 2016, approximately 2,322 refugees 16 were resettled in the Los Angeles area,6 and 3517 unaccompanied 17 minors being held by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services 18 Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) were released to sponsors in and 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates (2012-2016 ACS Data). 2 Id. 3 Id.; U.S. Census Bureau, Detailed Languages Spoken at Home and Ability to Speak English for the Population 5 Years and Older: 20092013. 4 Analysis of data from the 2016 Current Population Survey by the American Immigration Council, using IPUMS-CPS. Sarah Flood, King, Miriam, Ruggles, Steven, and Warren, J. Robert, Integrated Public Use Microdata Series, Current Population Survey: Version 5.0 [dataset] (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 2017). 5 City of Los Angeles analysis of personnel data. 6 U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration, Office of Admissions – Refugee Processing Center (State Department Refugee Data), available at ireports.wrapsnet.org. 1 1 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 7 of 17 Page ID #:18119 1 around Los Angeles.7 Chicago is likewise heavily dependent on the contributions of 2 3 individuals from countries most affected by the Flores settlement 4 agreement. Some 560,000 of Chicago’s approximately 2.7 million 5 residents are immigrants. More than one half of those immigrants 6 (291,487, or approximately 11% of Chicago’s population) were born in 7 Central America, Mexico, or South America.8 Approximately 1.32 8 million people are employed in Chicago. Of those, 185,836, or 9 approximately 14% of Chicago’s workforce, were born in Central 10 America, Mexico, or South America.9 In addition, like Los Angeles, Chicago welcomes and resettles a 11 12 large number of refugees: in 2016, approximately 2,091 refugees 13 resettled in the Chicago area,10 and in 2016, 256 unaccompanied minors 14 were placed by ORR in and around Chicago.11 This includes refugees 15 directly impacted by the federal government’s policy of separating 16 immigrant parents and children at the southwest border. Just 17 yesterday, a federal district court judge in Chicago entered a 18 preliminary injunction directing government officials to immediately 19 release a nine-year-old boy who had been placed with a social services 20 agency in Chicago to his mother, who had not seen him since they were 21 separated at the border in late May. The court held that their continued 22 separation likely violated their due process rights and subjected them to 23 24 25 26 27 28 U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement - Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by County FY16, Updated: January 26, 2017. (FY16 ORR Report). Retrieved from: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompaniedchildren-released-to-sponsors-by-county-fy16 8 2012-2016 ACS Data, supra, fn. 1. 9 Id. 10 State Department Refugee Data, supra, fn. 6. 11 FY16 ORR Report, supra, fn. 7. 7 2 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 8 of 17 Page ID #:18120 1 irreparable harm.12 The population of New York City is 8.4 million people as of 2016.13 2 3 New York City is home to over 3.1 million foreign-born New Yorkers, 4 about 37% of the City’s population.14 Of those immigrants, over 300,000 5 people, or about 4% of the city’s total population, were born either in 6 Mexico or Central America.15 New York City has residents from more 7 than 150 foreign countries.16 Over 150 languages are spoken in New 8 York City17 and approximately 49% of New Yorkers speak a language 9 other than English at home.18 Approximately 4.3 million people are in the labor force in New 10 11 York City; of those, 46% are foreign-born immigrants.19 New York City 12 itself employs 287,000 people,20 33% of them foreign-born.21 And 52% of 13 New York City’s business owners are immigrants.22 More than 2,000 refugees have been resettled in New York City 14 15 since 2010.23 However, since President Trump entered office, on 16 average, New York City has received about half the number of refugees 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Souza v. Sessions, No. 1:18-cv-04412 (MSS) ECF Dkt. # 23 (N.D. Ill. June 28, 2018). 13 2012-2016 ACS Data, supra, fn. 1. 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17 NEW YORK CITY MAYOR’S OFFICE OF IMMIGRANT AFFAIRS, STATE OF OUR IMMIGRANT CITY: ANNUAL REPORT MARCH 2018, at *13. Retrieved from: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/immigrants/downloads/pdf/moia_annual_re port_2018_final.pdf 18 2012-2016 ACS Data, supra, fn. 1. 19 Id. 20 Goodman, David J., Now Hiring: Under De Blasio, New York’s Government Grows to Record Level, N.Y. Times (Oct. 11, 2016), Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/12/nyregion/bill-deblasio-government-jobs.html 21 2012-2016 ACS Data, supra, fn. 1. 22 Id. 23 State Department Refugee Data, supra, fn. 6. 12 3 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 9 of 17 Page ID #:18121 1 per month compared to the last year of the Obama administration, from 2 about 29 refugees placed in New York City per month in 2016 to about 3 15 per month during Trump’s administration, for a total of 241 refugees 4 placed in New York City from January 2017 to June 26, 2018.24 In 5 federal fiscal year 2017, 1,400 unaccompanied minors being held by 6 ORR were released to sponsors in New York City.25 The City and County of San Francisco, with a total population of 7 8 850,282, has some 296,849 immigrant residents. Of those, 46,220 (more 9 than 5% of the entire population) were born in either Mexico or Central 10 America. In addition, San Francisco has 10,600 Hispanic/Latino owned 11 business. Those businesses generated $1,583,562,000 in sales, receipts, 12 or value of shipments and they employed 8,748 people. Specifically 13 addressing the need for ongoing support of Plaintiffs, San Francisco 14 welcomed 253 unaccompanied minors placed with sponsors by ORR in 15 2016 and another 230 unaccompanied minors in 2017.26 16 Of course, amici simply echo our nation’s centuries-old practice of 17 welcoming migrant children. Since its inception, the United States has 18 served as an adopted home for generations of migrant children. 19 Welcoming and protecting young immigrants is part and parcel of our 20 DNA. For example, more than one million children passed through Ellis 21 Island in its 62 years as an immigration station.27 However immigrants 22 came to our country, those who arrived here as children have certainly 23 helped to build the foundation of our economic prosperity, military 24 25 26 27 28 Id. U.S Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Refugee Resettlement - Unaccompanied Children Released to Sponsors by County FY17, Updated: May 25, 2018 (FY17 ORR Report). Retrieved from: https://www.acf.hhs.gov/orr/resource/unaccompanied-childrenreleased-to-sponsors-by-county-fy17 26 FY16 ORR Report, supra, fn. 7; FY17 ORR Report, supra, fn. 25. 27 Moreno, Barry, Children of Ellis Island, Arcadia Publishing (2005). 24 25 4 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 10 of 17 Page ID #:18122 1 security, cultural artistry, and civic society. Amici therefore look to a 2 new generation of child migrants, especially those traveling here to 3 escape harm and persecution, to help lead our financial and cultural 4 success into the future. For the following reasons, amici assert that 5 Defendants’ ex parte application should be denied. ARGUMENT 6 7 8 9 10 I. DEFENDANTS ARE UNABLE TO MEET THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THERE HAS BEEN A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES AT THE SOUTHWEST BORDER TO WARRANT REVISION OF THE SETTLEMENT. As Defendants note in their application, a court may only relieve a 11 party from “a final judgment, order, or proceeding” if that party 12 established that “a significant change in circumstances warrants 13 revision of the decree.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(5); Rufo v. Inmates of the 14 Suffolk County Jail, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992); see also Horne v. Flores, 15 557 U.S. 433, 447 (2009). As set forth by the United States Supreme 16 Court, this test is met where there are “changes in circumstances that 17 were beyond the defendants’ control and were not contemplated by the 18 court or the parties when the decree was entered.” Rufo, at 380-81. 19 Defendants have not met that burden. This Court’s action in 20 response to Defendants’ 2015 motion to modify the Flores agreement 21 provides guidance here. At that time, Defendants argued that a 22 modification to the agreement was required since the United States was 23 experiencing a “surge” in unauthorized family units entering the United 24 States in 2014. Defendants argued that this increase in the 25 apprehension of family units, as distinguished from apprehensions of 26 unaccompanied minors, was not anticipated when the parties entered 27 28 5 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 11 of 17 Page ID #:18123 1 into the Flores agreement.28 Statistics show that in 2012 and 2013, the two years prior to the 2 3 “surge” that was the impetus for Defendants’ 2015 motion, United 4 States Border Patrol apprehended a yearly average of 12,986 people 5 arriving in family units.29 In 2014, however, Border Patrol apprehended 6 68,445 family unit members, a 427% increase in family unit 7 apprehensions over the preceding year-over-year average. Id. After 8 considering the impact of the “surge,” this Court denied Defendants’ 9 motion, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding that the Flores 10 agreement “expressly anticipated an influx” could occur. Flores v. 11 Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 910 (9th Cir. 2016). With the present ex parte application, Defendants are once again 12 13 trying to claim that a “surge” in family units crossing the southwest 14 border has created a change sufficient to meet the standard set forth in 15 Rufo. But, even taking Defendants’ own qualified interpretation30 of 16 recent family unit apprehension statistics, one can see that there has 17 been no “significant change in circumstances.” Defendants are 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 See Defendants’ Motion to Modify Settlement Agreement, ECF Dkt. # 120 (Feb. 27, 2015). 29 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) statistical report titled: United States Border Patrol Southwest Family Unit Subject and Unaccompanied Alien Children Apprehensions Fiscal Year 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-borderunaccompanied-children/fy-2016 30 Amici use the word “qualified” because Defendants’ motion states they are estimating 88,670 apprehensions of family unit members in 2018, a number “projected” off the monthly average of family unit apprehensions to date in 2018 and “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.” Defendants’ Ex Parte Application to Modify Settlement Agreement (Application), ECF Dkt. # 435-1 at *8 (June 21, 2018). The “projected” number should not be considered reliable because it fails to reflect the seasonal fluctuations in migration patterns (i.e. the 2018 CBP statistical year ends on September 30, 2018 and crossings historically drop in the coming summer months when temperatures spike at the southwest border.). 28 6 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 12 of 17 Page ID #:18124 1 estimating there will be 88,670 apprehensions of family unit members in 2 2018. Taking this one year of data alone, Defendants’ assert “a 30% 3 increase” in family entries over the 2014 apprehensions. But this 4 increase is significantly smaller than the 427% “surge” relied upon in 5 Defendants’ 2015 motion, which this Court found unconvincing. And, if 6 one averages out the four years of reported family apprehensions since 7 that prior ruling – including Defendants’ qualified 2018 count – one 8 would find a yearly average of 70,451 apprehensions from 2015 through 9 and including 2018, which is a de minimis increase over the 68,445 10 apprehensions in 2014 that this Court found to be insufficient under the 11 Rufo test. 12 II. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE STATE LICENSING REQUIREMENT IN THE EXISTING SETTLEMENT IS CRITICAL TO ENSURING THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PLAINTIFF CHILDREN. Amici are acutely focused on Defendants’ attempt to modify the settlement to eliminate the state licensing requirement. Notably, paragraph 6 of the Flores settlement defines “licensed program” as “any program, agency or organization that is licensed by an appropriate state agency,” and Exhibit 1 of the settlement requires that licensed programs “comply with all applicable state child welfare laws and regulations and all state and local building, fire, health and safety codes.” The City of Los Angeles, through the Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, prosecutes violations of child welfare laws and health and safety codes in the State of California. So does the City and County of San Francisco and the City of New York. Cases are referred to these offices for prosecution by the State of California’s and New York’s licensing agencies. Amici have a strong interest, therefore, in the continued licensed regulation of Defendants’ child welfare programs, especially 7 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 13 of 17 Page ID #:18125 1 considering that media reports estimate that hundreds of children 2 recently separated from their families by Defendants’ are being held in 3 and around amici’s jurisdictions.31 Defendants assert in their application to the Court that they will 4 5 continue to comply with the requirements set forth in Exhibit 1 of the 6 settlement. See Application at *18 (stating “the Government does not 7 now object to the requirement that [Immigration and Customs 8 Enforcement (ICE)] family residential facilities would continue to meet 9 the standards laid out in Exhibit 1 to the Agreement”). Defendants are, 10 therefore, conceding they will continue to comply with state law, as 11 Exhibit 1 requires, but they want to be relieved of any oversight 12 provided by the state licensure. 13 Licensing is a critical check on the adequacy and competence of the 14 organizations running the facilities holding these migrant children. The 15 very purpose of state licensing is to ensure a minimum standard of 16 quality in a service field that is incredibly complex with the potential to 17 inflict extreme harm upon an already vulnerable youth population. The 18 only discernible purpose of the government’s requested change is to 19 evade the crucial layer of oversight and accountability provided by the 20 settlement agreement’s state licensure requirement. But Defendants present no evidence that state licensing is 21 22 unavailable or even impracticable, nor do they propose any alternative 23 to state licensure that would help ensure accountability of the agencies 24 25 26 27 28 See Robbins, Liz, Hundreds of separated children have quietly been sent to New York, N.Y. Times (June 20, 2018). Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/nyregion/children-separatedborder-new-york.html; Bermudez, Esmeralda, Children separated from parents arrive in L.A., but frustrated community gets few answers, L.A. Times (June 21, 2018). Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-ln-separated-kids-la20180620-story.html 31 8 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 14 of 17 Page ID #:18126 1 running the facilities. To the contrary, a report released just this week 2 by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) at the Department of 3 Homeland Security shows that ICE, for example, should not be self- 4 monitoring. Specifically, the OIG determined that ICE’s privately- 5 contracted inspection firms and its own self-monitoring via ICE’s Office 6 of Detention Oversight do not result in sustained compliance with 7 detention standards and practices, nor do they promote systemic 8 improvements or comprehensive corrections of deficiencies.32 The state licensing requirement is all the more critical now that 9 10 Judge Dana M. Sabraw has issued an order requiring the federal 11 government to reunite the separated children with their parents, many 12 of whom are in Defendants’ custody.33 Removing the licensing 13 requirement at this critical moment of reunification could create serious 14 consequences for the health and wellbeing of the children. In his ruling, 15 Judge Sabraw recognized the “constitutional liberty interest ‘of parents 16 in the care, custody, and control of their children[,]’ which ‘is perhaps 17 the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by’ the 18 Supreme Court.” Id. at *35 (quoting Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 65 19 (2000)). 20 Amici’s interest in seeing the state licensing requirements be 21 properly applied and enforced within our respective jurisdictions has its 22 foundation in that same fundamental liberty interest in protecting the 23 care and custody of all children. 24 25 26 27 28 U.S. Department of Homeland Security OIG Report (OIG-18-67), ICE’s Inspections and Monitoring of Detention Facilities Do Not Lead to Sustained Compliance or Systemic Improvements (June 26, 2018). Retrieved from: https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/201806/OIG-18-67-Jun18.pdf 33Ms. L. v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf’t, No. 18-cv-0428 (DMS) (MDD), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107365 (S.D. Cal. June 26, 2018). 32 9 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 15 of 17 Page ID #:18127 CONCLUSION 1 For these reasons, amici respectfully request this Court to deny 2 3 Defendants’ ex parte application for relief from the Flores settlement 4 agreement. As Physicians for Human Rights stated last week, “without state 5 6 licensure, there would be no guarantee of adherence to existing 7 minimum standards, which are designed to protect children and 8 families. In practice, such a modification would legalize ad hoc detention 9 sites, including tent cities on military bases. Families should be placed 10 in community-based settings while their proceedings are pending, and 11 no detention facility should ever be exempt from state licensing 12 requirements.”34 Ironically, just yesterday, the United States Department of State 13 14 echoed the statement by Physicians for Human Rights in the 15 department’s 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report.35 The report, which 16 was officially released on June 28, 2018, states in the context of 17 criticizing foreign government practices of child institutionalization 18 that, “[r]emoval of a child from the family should only be considered as a 19 temporary, last resort. Studies have found that both private and 20 government-run residential institutions for children, or places such as 21 orphanages and psychiatric wards that do not offer a family-based 22 setting, cannot replicate the emotional companionship and attention 23 found in family environments that are prerequisites to healthy cognitive 24 25 26 27 28 Statement by Homer Venters, MD, Physicians for Human Rights Director of Programs, on June 21, 2018. Retrieved from: http://physiciansforhumanrights.org/press/press-releases/legalprotections-for-immigrant-children.html 35 U.S. Department of State, 2018 Trafficking in Persons Report (June 28, 2018). Retrieved from: https://www.state.gov/documents/organization/282798.pdf 34 10 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 16 of 17 Page ID #:18128 1 2 development.”36 Dated: 3 June 29, 2018 Respectfully submitted, By:/s/ 4 Michael Dundas MICHAEL N. FEUER City Attorney James P. Clark Leela Kapur Valerie Flores Michael Dundas 200 North Main Street, City Hall East Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90012 5 6 7 8 9 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae City of Los Angeles, California 10 11 EDWARD N. SISKEL Corporation Counsel 30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60602 12 13 14 Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of Chicago, Illinois 15 16 ZACHARY W. CARTER Corporation Counsel 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 17 18 19 Attorney for Amicus Curiae City of New York, New York 20 21 DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney City Hall Room 234 One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Pl. San Francisco, CA 94102 22 23 24 Attorney for Amicus Curiae City and County of San Francisco, California 25 26 27 28 36 Id. 11 Case 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR Document 453 Filed 07/03/18 Page 17 of 17 Page ID #:18129 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 I hereby certify that on July 3, 2018, a copy of the foregoing Brief 4 of City of Los Angeles, City of Chicago, City of New York, and City and 5 County of San Francisco as Amici Curiae in Opposition to Defendants’ 6 Ex Parte Application for Relief from the Flores Settlement was filed and 7 served pursuant to the Court’s electronic filing procedures using 8 CM/ECF. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 /s/ Michael Dundas Michael Dundas