Litigate to overturn the Flores Settlement Agreement

Attempted

Printed page 568 17. Department of Justice

“Pursue proactive litigation to advance the federal government’s interests in areas where erroneous precedent curtails authorities provided by Congress (for example, by pursuing the overturning of the Flores Settlement Agreement).”

What has happened

Jan 28, 2026 Attempted
DOJ moved in the Central District of California in May 2025 to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement; Judge Gee denied the motion in August 2025 and the government appealed (Ninth Circuit No. 25-6308, Flores v. Bondi), where twenty states filed an amicus brief against termination on 2026-01-28. The agreement remains in force; the appeal was argued in mid-2026 and no decision was found.
- Amicus brief of California and 19 other states, Flores v. Bondi, No. 25-6308 (9th Cir.), on appeal from C.D. Cal. No. 2:85-cv-04544 — recites the government's motion to terminate and its appeal
  Primary State Jan 28, 2026
- California Attorney General press release: Bonta leads multistate amicus brief opposing Trump Administration's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement
  Primary State Jan 28, 2026
May 22, 2025 Attempted
The litigation the Quote asks for was filed: on 2025-05-22 the government moved in the Central District of California for relief from the Flores Settlement Agreement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (docket entry 1567, "NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Relief from Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) filed by Defendants James McHenry", hearing set for 2025-07-18). This is the same instrument #351 records at this date, read here from the district docket rather than from a recital of it.
- Docket, Flores v. Meese, No. 2:85-cv-04544 (C.D. Cal.) — entry 1567 (2025-05-22), the government's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from the Flores Settlement Agreement
  Primary Executive branch May 22, 2025

Research log

What was searched, and what didn’t count as evidence

Research notes

The motion to terminate (C.D. Cal. No. 2:85-cv-04544-DMG, filed May 2025) and Judge Gee’s August 2025 denial are not on any allowlisted page that could be read: the district docket predates the window of the CourtListener bulk snapshot we keep, no opinion surfaced in our keyword search of CourtListener, justice.gov has no release, and The Hill’s report on the denial (https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5456060-trump-administration-migrant-children-protection-ruling/) and the Washington Post’s hearing preview (2025-08-08) both refused to open for us. Leads; the 2026-01-28 event was therefore dated to the readable state-AG filing that recites the sequence.
Resolved 2026-09-09. The May 2025 motion no longer rests on a recital. CourtListener’s search can read inside one docket without an account — a route found on 2026-09-02, after the note above was written — and on the district docket that note said could not be read (CourtListener docket 4145012) it returns entry 1567, filed 2025-05-22, the Rule 60(b) motion. The 2025-05-22 attempted event is that entry, and it carries the same date #351 gives the same instrument. Judge Gee’s August 2025 order is still not readable here; #351 carries it at 2025-08-15 from its own reading, and the Status is unaffected either way — see the last bullet.
Among the federal court dockets we keep and search (CourtListener’s bulk snapshot): Ninth Circuit docket 25-6308 “Flores v. Blanche, et al.” filed 2025-10-07, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71583282/flores-v-blanche-et-al/ (the page refused to open for us; lead). An earlier Ninth Circuit docket 25-820 “Flores v. Bondi” (filed 2025-02-07, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69623620/flores-v-bondi-et-al/) is a different appeal. Advocacy pages (Children’s Rights, Young Center, CAC) say argument was set for June 2026; leads.
Denial of the motion is not blocked: no court order stops the government from acting; the court declined to release it from a consent decree it agreed to.

Action: eliminate
Object: Flores Settlement Agreement
ID: 1575