vlog

Skip to content
NOWCAST vlog News at 6pm Weekday Evening
Watch on Demand
Advertisement

Trump administration files motion to end protections for immigrant children in federal custody

Trump administration files motion to end protections for immigrant children in federal custody
PROMISE TO CRACK DOWN ON IMMIGRATION DURING HIS FIRST THREE MONTHS BACK IN OFFICE. HIS ADMINISTRATION ANNOUNCED 175 IMMIGRATION SPECIFIC EXECUTIVE ACTIONS. THAT’S ACCORDING TO ANALYSIS FROM THE MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE. IT’S LED TO ARRESTS, RAIDS, DEPORTATIONS, THOSE EXPULSIONS INCLUDE CHILDREN. RECENTLY, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REMOVED THREE CHILDREN WHO ARE U.S. CITIZENS. SO WHAT’S THE TOLL BEEN ON CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS ARE UNDOCUMENTED OR MAY BE UNDOCUMENTED THEMSELVES? WHAT’S THE TOLL BEEN ON THE SCHOOLS THEY ATTEND? JULIE SUGARMAN IS ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR K THROUGH 12 EDUCATION RESEARCH AT THE MIGRATION POLICY INSTITUTE. THANK YOU FOR JOINING ME. THANK YOU. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT UNDOCUMENTED PEOPLE GENERALLY AND THEN SPECIFICALLY KIDS, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WE DISCUSSING? THERE’S ABOUT 13 MILLION UNDOCUMENTED PEOPLE IN THE U.S., BUT THIS AFFECTS MORE THAN JUST CHILDREN WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED THEMSELVES. THERE’S ABOUT 9 MILLION CHILDREN WHO LIVE IN A HOUSEHOLD WITH A PARENT OR ANOTHER ADULT WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN. ARE THERE LAWS THAT DICTATE HOW A SCHOOL SHOULD DEAL WITH, LET’S SAY, ICE? IF IT WERE TO SHOW UP ON THE SCHOOL CAMPUS? ABSOLUTELY. WE HAVEN’T SEEN ICE DOING ANY OPERATIONS IN SCHOOLS, BUT WE HAVE SEEN THEM AROUND SCHOOLS. THERE’S A LOT OF SCHOOLS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING POLICIES. THEY RELY ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO PRIVACY. THERE CAN BE A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A JUDICIAL WARRANT TO BE IN THE PRIVATE AREAS OF A SCHOOL. SO A SCHOOL CAN SAY, IF ICE COMES TO OUR CAMPUS, WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE A JUDICIAL WARRANT. AND THAT’S SOMETHING THAT SCHOOLS HAVE BEEN DOING, IS SHOWING TEACHERS AND OTHER STAFF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ADMINISTRATIVE WARRANT, WHICH IS SOMETHING WHERE ICE HAS SOMETHING FROM THEIR OWN OFFICE SAYING WHAT THEY WANT TO DO VERSUS A JUDICIAL WARRANT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY SIGNED BY A JUDGE. BUT SCHOOLS CAN ALSO VOLUNTARILY COOPERATE. SO THESE POLICIES THAT THEY’RE DEVELOPING ARE REALLY IMPORTANT FOR MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONE’S ON THE SAME PAGE WITH HOW HOW THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO RESPOND IF ICE COMES. ARE THERE SPECIFIC THINGS THAT YOU’RE SEEING FRONT OFFICES DO IN TERMS OF JUST GATHERING INFORMATION? ABSOLUTELY. A LOT OF SCHOOLS RIGHT NOW ARE GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THEIR POLICIES AROUND INFORMATION, MAKING SURE THAT THEY’RE ONLY COLLECTING THE INFORMATION THEY ABSOLUTELY NEED, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO THINGS THAT ARE SENSITIVE, LIKE WHERE A CHILD WAS BORN OR INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR PARENTS. AND THERE IS A FEDERAL LAW THAT REQUIRES PARENTAL NOTIFICATION AND PERMISSION TO GIVE INFORMATION OUT. AND SO SCHOOLS ARE MAKING SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS WHAT INFORMATION CAN BE GIVEN TO ICE OR TO OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AND WHAT CAN’T. WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY ABOUT THE EDUCATION OF ALL CHILDREN, INCLUDING CHILDREN WHO ARE UNDOCUMENTED? THERE’S TWO REALLY IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT CASES. ONE IS PLYLER VERSUS DOE FROM 1982, WHICH SAYS THAT ALL CHILDREN HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ENROLLED IN SCHOOL REGARDLESS OF THEIR IMMIGRATION STATUS OR THEIR PARENTS, REAL OR PERCEIVED IMMIGRATION STATUS. AND THEN ONCE THEY’RE INTO SCHOOL, THERE IS ANOTHER COURT CASE CALLED LAU VERSUS NICHOLS FROM 1974 THAT REQUIRES SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO STUDENTS TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE SAME EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES AS ALL OTHER STUDENTS. SO THOSE TWO COURT CASES TOGETHER ARE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOLS TO MAKE SURE THAT CHILDREN CAN ACCESS THE CURRICULUM AND EVERYTHING THAT OTHER CHILDREN ARE LEARNING. HAVE YOU SEEN IMPACTS ON TEACHERS? BECAUSE, OF COURSE, TO A LARGE DEGREE, THEY’RE GOING TO BE THE FRONT LINE OF NAVIGATING WHATEVER IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING WITH THE STUDENTS. THE RESEARCH FROM THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION REALLY SHOWED THAT TEACHERS WERE VERY STRESSED AND WORRIED. AND I THINK WE’VE BEEN HEARING THE SAME REPORTS FROM THE LAST 2 OR 3 MONTHS. AND THEY’RE ALSO REALLY WORRIED ABOUT WHAT SOME OF THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDERS RELATED TO EDUCATION MIGHT BE FOR ENGLISH LEARNER AND IMMIGRANT STUDENTS. HAVE THEY SEEN ACTUAL, TANGIBLE CHANGES IN THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WHO ARE SHOWING UP AT SCHOOL? WE’VE DEFINITELY HEARD ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE WHERE AFTER ICE HAS BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY, THERE’S A NOTICEABLE DROP IN ATTENDANCE AMONG HISPANIC AND IMMIGRANT CHILDREN, AND IT HAS AN EFFECT ON WHETHER THEY’RE ABLE TO CONCENTRATE, WHETHER THEY’RE WORRIED. AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THEY ARE IN SCHOOL, BUT THEY’RE THEY’RE NOT ABLE TO FOCUS. THAT’S ALSO A PROBLEM. JULIE SUGARMAN IS WITH THE MIGRATIO
AP logo
Updated: 1:56 PM CDT May 22, 2025
Editorial Standards
Advertisement
Trump administration files motion to end protections for immigrant children in federal custody
AP logo
Updated: 1:56 PM CDT May 22, 2025
Editorial Standards
The Trump administration is seeking to end an immigration policy cornerstone that since the 1990s has offered protections to child migrants in federal custody, a move that will be challenged by advocates, according to a court filing Thursday.The protections in place, known as the Flores Settlement, largely limit to 72 hours the amount of time that child migrants traveling alone or with family and detained by the U.S. Border Patrol. They also ensure the children are kept in safe and sanitary conditions.President Donald Trump tried to end the protections during his first term and his allies have long railed against it. The court filing, submitted jointly by the administration and advocates, says the government plans to detail its arguments later Thursday and proposes a hearing on July 18 before U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee.The settlement is named for a Salvadoran girl, Jenny Flores, whose lawsuit alleging widespread mistreatment of children in custody in the 1980s prompted special oversight.In August 2019, the first Trump administration asked a judge to dissolve the agreement. Its motion eventually was struck down in December 2020 by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Under the Biden administration, oversight protections for child migrants were lifted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after new guidelines were put in place last year.The Department of Homeland Security is still beholden to the agreement, including Customs and Border Protection, which detains and processes children after their arrival in the U.S. with or without their parents. Children then are usually released with their families or sent to a shelter operated by HHS, though processing times often go up when the number of people entering increases in a short time period.Even with the agreement in place, there have been instances where the federal government failed to provide adequate conditions for children, as in a case in Texas where nearly 300 children had to be moved from a Border Patrol facility following reports they were receiving inadequate food, water and sanitation.Court-appointed monitors provide oversight of the agreement and report noncompliant facilities to Gee. CBP was set to resume its own oversight but in January a federal judge ruled it was not ready and extended the use of court-appointed monitors for another 18 months.

The Trump administration is seeking to end an immigration policy cornerstone that since the 1990s has offered protections to child migrants in federal custody, a move that will be challenged by advocates, according to a court filing Thursday.

The protections in place, known as the Flores Settlement, largely limit to 72 hours the amount of time that child migrants traveling alone or with family and detained by the U.S. Border Patrol. They also ensure the children are kept in safe and sanitary conditions.

Advertisement

President Donald Trump tried to end the protections during his first term and his allies have long railed against it. The court filing, submitted jointly by the administration and advocates, says the government plans to detail its arguments later Thursday and proposes a hearing on July 18 before U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee.

The settlement is named for a Salvadoran girl, Jenny Flores, whose lawsuit alleging widespread mistreatment of children in custody in the 1980s prompted special oversight.

In August 2019, the first Trump administration asked a judge to dissolve the agreement. Its motion eventually was struck down in December 2020 by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Under the Biden administration, oversight protections for child migrants were lifted for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services after new guidelines were put in place last year.

The Department of Homeland Security is still beholden to the agreement, including Customs and Border Protection, which detains and processes children after their arrival in the U.S. with or without their parents. Children then are usually released with their families or sent to a shelter operated by HHS, though processing times often go up when the number of people entering increases in a short time period.

Even with the agreement in place, there have been instances where the federal government failed to provide adequate conditions for children, as in a case in Texas where nearly 300 children had to be moved from a Border Patrol facility following reports they were receiving inadequate food, water and sanitation.

Court-appointed monitors provide oversight of the agreement and report noncompliant facilities to Gee. CBP was set to resume its own oversight but in January a federal judge ruled it was not ready and extended the use of court-appointed monitors for another 18 months.