District Court for the Central District of California’s 9/21/20 order precluding DHS from placing minors detained pursuant to a public health order under Title 42 in hotels for more than three days in the process of expelling them from the United States, after the district court declared that the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement applied to the minors.
Rosen, 12/29/20)ĭenying the government’s motion for a stay, the court upheld the U.S. Finally, the court found that the district court correctly concluded that the Agreement was not terminated by the adoption of the regulations, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the government’s motion to terminate. However, the court affirmed the district court’s order enjoining the remaining new regulations relating to accompanied minors, noting that they departed from the Agreement in several important ways. The court also found that some of the regulations regarding initial detention and custody of both unaccompanied and accompanied minors were consistent with the Agreement. In an action involving new regulations adopted by HHS and DHS in 2019 that purported to implement the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement, the court held that the provisions of the new regulations relating to unaccompanied minors were generally consistent with the Agreement, with two exceptions. District Court for the Central District of California’s September 21, 2020, order requiring DHS to apply the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement to minors detained in hotels for more than a few days pending their expulsion from the United States under the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC) Title 42 order.
The district court ordered the parties to submit a proposed schedule for final approval of the settlement agreement within 70 days. Under the settlement agreement, the government will use all good faith efforts to pay the settlement amount within 90 days of the court’s final approval of the agreement. The parties reached a settlement to resolve the plaintiffs’ Motion for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), in which the government agreed to pay $1,150,000 in settlement of the plaintiffs’ claims and any potential claims for attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, and related expenses pursuant to the motion.
0 kommentar(er)
