Jenny Lisette Flores v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, et al.

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
D.C. No. 2:85-cv-04544-DMG-AGR (2017)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Subsequent federal legislation that is silent on a pre-existing right established in a consent decree does not implicitly terminate that right. Congress must explicitly state its intent to abrogate the terms of a binding settlement agreement; legislative silence will not be interpreted as an affirmative repeal.

Facts:

In 1997, a plaintiff class of non-citizen minors and the federal government entered into the Flores Settlement Agreement, a court-approved consent decree establishing a nationwide policy for the detention and release of minors in the custody of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).
The settlement included a general policy favoring the release of minors and, under Paragraph 24A, guaranteed minors in deportation proceedings a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge unless they affirmatively waived it.
In 2002, Congress passed the Homeland Security Act (HSA), which abolished the INS and transferred the functions relating to the care and placement of unaccompanied minors to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR).
In 2008, Congress passed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA), which affirmed ORR's responsibility for the care and custody of unaccompanied minors and codified certain protections, many of which paralleled the Flores Settlement.
Following the passage of these acts, the government, through ORR, began detaining unaccompanied minors for extended periods, in some cases over a year, without providing them with the bond redetermination hearings specified in Paragraph 24A of the Flores Settlement.
The new laws did not contain any language that explicitly mentioned or terminated the bond-hearing requirement of the Flores Settlement.

Procedural Posture:

The plaintiff class and the federal government entered into the Flores Settlement, which was approved as a consent decree by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in 1997.
After the government stopped providing bond hearings to unaccompanied minors following the passage of the HSA and TVPRA, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the district court to enforce Paragraph 24A of the Settlement Agreement.
The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the agreement, finding that the intervening statutes did not terminate the bond-hearing requirement.
The federal government (appellant) appealed the district court's enforcement order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the plaintiff class as the appellee.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA) and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 (TVPRA), by transferring responsibility for unaccompanied minors to the Office of Refugee Resettlement, implicitly terminate the provision of the Flores Settlement Agreement that guarantees these minors a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge?

Opinions:

Majority - Reinhardt

No, the HSA and TVPRA do not terminate the bond-hearing requirement for unaccompanied minors. When Congress legislates, it is presumed to be aware of existing law, including binding consent decrees, and legislative silence cannot be interpreted as an intent to repeal or terminate such agreements. To modify a consent decree based on a change in law, a party must show that the new law makes compliance with the decree's terms 'impermissible' by creating a direct conflict, which is not the case here. The court's reasoning is based on three points. First, the plain text of the HSA and TVPRA is silent on bond hearings; they neither mention nor eliminate the right established in Paragraph 24A. Canons of statutory construction require a clear statement to abrogate existing law or agreements. Second, the statutory framework created by the new laws, which gives ORR responsibility for the 'care and placement' of minors, is not exclusive and does not preclude the authority of immigration judges to conduct bond hearings. This arrangement simply substitutes ORR for the former INS in making the final determination about a safe release placement after a judge reviews the need for detention. Third, Congressional intent behind the HSA and TVPRA was to increase protections for vulnerable unaccompanied minors, not to strip them of existing rights like a bond hearing.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the principle that government consent decrees are durable and cannot be easily undone by subsequent, general legislation. It establishes a high bar for the government to argue that a change in law implicitly supersedes its negotiated obligations, requiring a showing of direct conflict or explicit legislative repeal. The ruling preserves a critical procedural safeguard for unaccompanied minors, ensuring they have access to a neutral arbiter to review the basis for their detention. This precedent reinforces the separation of powers, limiting the executive branch's ability to unilaterally discard settlement terms based on its interpretation of new statutes and affirming the judiciary's role in enforcing such agreements.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Jenny Lisette Flores v. Jefferson B. Sessions III, et al. (2017)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature