In 2017, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee found that children detained by U.S. Customs and Border Guards lacked “food, clean water and basic hygiene items” and were insomniacs. She called on the federal government to provide items such as soap and improve conditions. [6] The federal government has submitted regions to the decision that the injunction requiring it to provide certain goods and services exceeds Flores` original agreement. The Hearing on June 18, 2019 became infamous[7] and sparked outrage across the country when a video of the Justice Department`s chief lawyer taking care of minor teeth and soap went viral. The federal government lost its appeal when a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals board upheld the Ninth Gees Circuit Court order on August 15, 2019. [6] The parties agreed that the litigation would be closed as soon as the government terminated the transaction-compliant regulations. As the government has not yet reached such a settlement, the dispute is not yet closed. Compliance with the transaction was criticized and led to justice, which led to extensions and changes.

[34] [38] In 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice concluded, “While the INS has made considerable progress since the Flores Agreement was signed, our review found deficiencies in the implementation of guidelines and procedures developed in response to Flores.” [38] The Trump administration`s detention of migrant children in poor conditions along the U.S.-Mexico border has raised this issue on several occasions. The answer is a decades-old legal process, known as the Flores comparison. The colony sets out the rules that the U.S. government must follow when it keeps migrant children in the enforcement of immigration laws. The trial for the implementation of the Flores agreement has been ongoing in recent weeks. These include legal proceedings brought by immigrant and civil rights groups in response to what they described as a “direct threat to the health and well-being” of the children of detained migrants. U.S. border guards should have “immediately returned children to their loved ones and created safe and sanitary conditions for all children in their custody,” said a lawyer representing the groups that filed the complaint.

The Ministry of Justice made headlines in recent disputes over the implementation of the Flores agreement by defending the conditions of detention of migrant children. The judges of the Court of Appeal were incredulous at the government`s assertion that soap and a toothbrush are not necessarily necessary for the children of imprisoned migrants. The FSA established a “preferential classification for types of sponsorship” with the parents, then as a legal guardian as a first choice, then as an “adult parent,” “an adult person or institution designated by the parent or legal guardian of the child,” a “licensed program that agrees to accept custody of the children,” an “adult or an agency accredited by the Refugee Reception Authority (RRO). [34]:8[3]:10 or sent to a state-sanctioned agency. [31] [35] [36] Detained children may seek judicial review with all United States.