Quick Read
- U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth and 23 Senate colleagues filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- The brief urges the court to uphold the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement.
- The Flores Agreement sets minimum standards for children in immigration detention.
- Senators argue that the “One, Big Beautiful Bill Act” did not override these protections.
- The legal challenge stems from the *Flores v. Bondi* case.
WASHINGTON (Azat TV) – U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) has joined 23 of her Senate colleagues in filing a significant amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, urging the affirmation of the 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement to safeguard critical protections for minors in immigration detention. This legal action comes amidst a challenge in the case *Flores v. Bondi*, where opponents contend that recent legislative funding measures have superseded the long-standing agreement designed to ensure the humane treatment of children in federal custody.
The amicus brief, spearheaded by U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Gary Peters (D-MI), argues forcefully against the notion that the Republican-led “One, Big Beautiful Bill Act” (OBBB Act) implicitly overrides the Flores Settlement. The senators assert that the OBBB Act, enacted through the budget reconciliation process, was limited to budgetary matters—specifically appropriating funds for detention capacity—and did not alter the substantive legal standards governing detention. They emphasize that a provision terminating the Flores Settlement would constitute a major substantive policy change, one that could not have legitimately survived the reconciliation process.
Defending the Flores Settlement
The 1997 Flores Settlement Agreement is a landmark legal accord that establishes minimum standards for the detention, release, and treatment of all children in U.S. immigration custody. These standards include requirements for safe and sanitary conditions, access to education, and timely release to parents or guardians. For nearly three decades, it has served as a crucial safeguard, particularly for vulnerable noncitizen children.
The senators’ brief clarifies that appropriating funds for family residential centers, as the OBBB Act did, does not equate to congressional approval of family detention in violation of the Flores standards. They argue that Congress regularly appropriates funds for activities that remain subject to independent legal requirements. For instance, funding federal construction projects does not exempt them from environmental review, nor does expanding the federal workforce displace existing collective bargaining agreements. Similarly, appropriating money for detention does not eliminate the legal standards governing how that detention must be conducted, including the specific requirements of the Flores Settlement for the treatment of children.
Senator Duckworth’s Broader Advocacy
Senator Duckworth’s participation in this amicus brief underscores her consistent advocacy for vulnerable populations and her commitment to upholding established legal protections. As a decorated combat veteran and a prominent voice in national policy, her involvement lends significant weight to the effort. Her dedication to ensuring robust national security and humanitarian standards is well-recognized. For example, in late January 2026, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) announced its 2026 Shawn Brimley Next Generation National Security Fellows. Senator Duckworth has previously been invited to speak to past classes of these fellows, engaging with emerging leaders from diverse sectors on critical U.S. national security interests and leadership principles.
Her engagement with the CNAS program, which aims to develop a diverse cadre of talented individuals dedicated to strengthening national security, highlights her role as a mentor and thought leader. This background reinforces her current action in the Ninth Circuit, demonstrating a holistic approach to public service that encompasses both national defense and the protection of fundamental human rights within the nation’s borders.
Implications for Child Migrants
The outcome of the *Flores v. Bondi* case and the court’s decision regarding the amicus brief could have profound implications for thousands of migrant children arriving at U.S. borders. Upholding the Flores Settlement Agreement would reaffirm the legal framework that ensures these children are treated with dignity and provided with basic necessities while in government custody. Conversely, a ruling that weakens the agreement could lead to less regulated detention environments and potentially compromise the well-being of these vulnerable individuals.
The senators’ arguments highlight a critical tension between legislative intent in budget allocations and the preservation of substantive law. Their brief serves as a clear statement that funding for government operations does not automatically nullify existing legal protections, especially those established to safeguard fundamental human rights. The Ninth Circuit’s consideration of these arguments will be pivotal in defining the scope of protections available to children in immigration detention for years to come.
The collective action by Senator Duckworth and her colleagues in filing this amicus brief reflects a continued effort by legislative bodies to ensure judicial adherence to established legal frameworks, particularly when humanitarian concerns for vulnerable populations are at stake. It underscores the vital role of the judiciary in interpreting legislative intent and safeguarding the enduring principles enshrined in legal settlements like Flores against challenges that seek to reframe budgetary measures as substantive policy changes.