If the Trump administration succeeds in ending a decades-old court ruling on the treatment of migrant children, it will be able to indefinitely detain migrant children before they receive immigration court hearings. This 1997 decision, Flores v. Reno (now known as the Flores Convention) has given rise to a judicial oversight regime that establishes a number of strict rules regarding the detention of immigrant children and has so far regulated their treatment. In June 2018, the Flores agreement received increased public attention when Trump, his administration and his supporters invoked the FSA and the Democratic opposition to justify the Trump administration`s family separation policy, which persecuted all adults detained at the U.S.-Mexico border and took them to federal prisons. , while children and young children were placed under the supervision of the U.S. Department of Health (DHHS).  In June 2018, Vox Media summarized the government`s interpretation of the transaction in such a way that the government “cannot keep parents and children in pre-trial detention, but has no choice but to detain parents (after being prosecuted for illegal entry) and to send children to DHS as “unaccompanied children”.  Despite the text of Flores v. Reno, human rights activists have said that no law or court ruling requires the separation of children from their families.     On June 11, 2018, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz said in a public radio interview in Dallas: “There is a court order that prevents children from staying with their parents when their parents are put in jail.” PolitiFact verified Cruz`s statement and concluded that it was “generally false.”  On June 14, 2018, White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters: “The separation of foreign clandestine families is the product of the same legal loopholes that Democrats don`t want to close. And these laws are the same as those that have been in the books for more than a decade. The president simply imposes it,” Wisconsin Republican Congressman and House of Representatives spokesman Paul Ryan told reporters, “What happens at the border when parents and their children separate is due to a court decision,” and Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley tweeted, “I would like two to end the separation of families at the border by overturning the court`s decision.
1997 which requires the separation of families. The New York Times said there was “no decades-old law or court order that required” the separation of migrant children from their parents.  The immersion in its history supports the theory that the Clinton administration knew very well what it was doing when it signed the agreement and may have had more in common with activist complainants than originally thought with respect to the relaxation of asylum rules. In 1997, the U.S. government entered into an agreement known as the Flores Settlement Agreement and Flores v. Reno, a 1987 California case. The case was filed on July 11, 1985 by the Centre for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL) and two other organizations on behalf of minor immigrants, including Jenny Lisette Flores, who had been placed in a male and female adult detention facility after being stopped by the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to cross the Mexican-U.S. border illegally. As part of the Flores comparison and current circumstances, DHS states that it generally cannot keep extraterrestrial children and their parents together for longer periods.  In his executive order of June 20, 2018, President Trump ordered then-General Jeff Sessions to ask the Central District Court of California to “modify” the Flores Agreement to “allow the government to keep foreign families together for a long period of time,” which would include the time that could be considered for the