University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name Flores v. Reno [later Meese, Johnson, Kelly, Sessions] IM-CA-0002
Docket / Court 2:85-cv-04544 ( C.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
COVID-19 (novel coronavirus)
Attorney Organization ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Southern California
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
MALDEF
National Center for Youth Law
Youth Law Center
Case Summary
COVID-19 Summary: This is a very longstanding class action addressing appropriate treatment of noncitizen children in federal immigration custody. On March 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking promptly release due to COVID-19 risks. On March 27, 2020, the court issued an order to ... read more >
COVID-19 Summary: This is a very longstanding class action addressing appropriate treatment of noncitizen children in federal immigration custody. On March 26, 2020, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking promptly release due to COVID-19 risks. On March 27, 2020, the court issued an order to the federal agencies detaining immigrant children to “make continuous efforts” to release the children from custody because of the risk posed to them by COVID-19 and to provide an accounting of their efforts to release those in custody by April 6. On April 24 the court issued an order requiring defendants to release children without unnecessary delay to eligible sponsors. On May 22, following interim reports from defendants, the court expressed concern with defendants' compliance and ordered enhanced monitoring and further status reports.

Note: We've posted this case as one challenging President Trump's immigration executive orders because those executive orders and their implementing memoranda, included as "resources," below, touch on many of the matters subject to longstanding court oversight in this case.

On July 11, 1985, attorneys from the National Center for Immigrants' Rights, the National Center for Youth Law, and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California represented four minors who filed this class action complaint against the U.S. Attorney General, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), its regional commissioner, and two private operators of INS detention facilities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, presented a class-wide challenge to (a) INS policy to condition juveniles' release on bail on their parents' or legal guardians' surrendering to INS agents for interrogation and deportation; (b) the procedures employed by the INS in imposing a condition on juveniles' bail that their parents' or legal guardians' surrender to INS agents for interrogation and deportation; and (c) the conditions maintained by the INS in facilities where juveniles are incarcerated.

The challenged policy, under which the INS conditioned release of the administratively-arrested minors on the surrender of their parents or guardians for INS questioning or possible deportation proceedings was then-new; it had become effective on September 6, 1984, in the INS' Western Region. The plaintiffs noted that juveniles detained pending exclusion proceedings were eligible for bond without the bond eligibility condition that existed for juveniles detained pending deportation. The plaintiffs alleged that the new policy resulted in lengthy incarceration of juveniles in substandard conditions, without education, supervised recreation, or reasonable visitation opportunities; unreasonably subjected them to strip and body cavity searches; and served as a thinly-veiled device to apprehend the parents of the incarcerated juveniles and to punish children. The INS policy and the conditions of detention, according to the plaintiffs, violated (a) the INA, 8 U.S.C. sections 1101 et seq., including 8 U.S.C. section 1252(a)(2) and implementing regulations and Operating Instructions; (b) the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sections 552 et seq., including 5 U.S.C. section 553(b)-(c); (c) the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fifth Amendment; (d) the First Amendment and federal constitutional privacy rights; and (e) the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, TIAS 6577, 19 U.S. 6223 [hereafter United Nations Protocol], and customary international law. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, class action status, habeas corpus writs for themselves and members of their class to allow their release on bail, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

Pre-Settlement Agreement Proceedings

By November 30, 1987, the federal defendants and the plaintiffs entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle those aspects of the complaint alleging unlawful conditions of detention for the minors. The agreement established a network of community-based shelter care programs for minors held in INS custody.

Next, the aspect of the case alleging that the minors were unconstitutionally subjected to strip and body cavity searches came before the district court upon cross-motions for summary judgment. On March 7, 1988, District Judge Robert J. Kelleher ruled in the plaintiffs' favor. His opinion cited the lack of productive results from such strip searches and the failure of the defendants to establish a plausible, much less compelling, need for a blanket policy of searching minors in custody for administrative violations, rather than criminal offenses. Absent reasonable suspicion that a strip search would yield a weapon or contraband, Judge Kelleher said the practice violated the Fourth Amendment. Flores v. Meese, 681 F. Supp. 665 (C.D. Cal. 1988).

The INS had also moved for partial summary judgment regarding the plaintiffs' challenge to the bond condition. Judge Kelleher held that conditioning release, as alleged, did not violate federal statutory or international law, but deferred decision on the federal constitutional claims until further discovery had been completed. However, the judge later ruled that the bond release condition violated the Equal Protection clause since no rational reason existed for treating alien minors in deportation proceedings differently than those in exclusion proceedings. The INS subsequently published for comment a proposed regulation that allowed for release of detained minors on bond to the custody of certain adults, per an order of preference included in the regulation, unless the INS determined detention remained necessary to ensure the minor's appearance at INS proceedings or to ensure safety. The district court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, saying the new regulation, 8 C.F.R. § 242.24, constituted a due process violation. The district court's unpublished order invalidated the blanket detention of minors where a "responsible adult," albeit not a parent, relative, or legal guardian, could ensure the minor's attendance at the deportation hearing, and it required a hearing before a neutral and detached official in each case to determine whether release was appropriate and the conditions of release.

On appeal, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling the INS had the discretion under statutory law to issue the regulation and not limit release to merely ensuring a minor's appearance at proceedings. On the due process claim, the court said that even if a minor had a right to be released to an unrelated adult, that right was not fundamental, and was thus subject to reasonable restriction. Absent a fundamental right, minimum scrutiny of the regulation sufficed. The panel cited that both the plenary power of the U.S. to control its borders and the limited nature of juveniles' rights compared to adults’ rights warranted this result. Additionally, citing the civil nature of the proceedings, the court ruled that the procedural due process appropriate in criminal cases did not fully apply here. The panel opinion said the district court should, in assessing the INS procedures, balance the factors applicable in civil case due process settings (e.g., private interest, risk of erroneous deprivations, and governmental interest). Flores by Galvez-Maldonado v. Meese, 934 F.2d 998 (9th Cir. 1990).

Seeking rehearing en banc, the plaintiffs contended that the panel majority erred by failing to recognize their fundamental interest in liberty, and that no procedure other than an individual hearing before an independent officer could provide adequate protections for the right at stake. On August 9, 1991, the en banc Ninth Circuit held that the INS's blanket detention of children during the pendency of deportation proceedings was unconstitutional. The court said that illegal aliens had due process rights and that the INS had not shown that it had a need to impinge upon those rights in the manner it did. The court further found that the agency's judgment was not entitled to the usual deference accorded to administrative rulings since the interests of minors fell outside the agency's area of expertise. Consequently, the en banc court held that the INS’s policy was unconstitutional, and held in favor of the plaintiffs. Flores ex rel. Galvez-Maldonado v. Meese, 942 F.2d 1352 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc). The federal defendants' petition for certiorari, seeking Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit's opinion, was granted on March 2, 1992. Barr v. Flores, 503 U.S. 905 (1992).

The Supreme Court examined the language in the uniform deportation-exclusion rule, 8 C.F.R. § 242.24, in order to determine whether the ruling that alien juveniles should be released to responsible adults was correct. The court concluded that it was not. They held that the regulation accorded with both the Constitution and the relevant statute, which the court found gave the U.S. broad discretion to continue custody over arrested aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The court found that the detained minors, for whom the U.S. was responsible, had no fundamental right to be released to a private party when no parent, close relative, or legal guardian was available, and the regulation therefore did not violate their right to due process. The court further found that the earlier consent decree ensured placement of the juveniles in facilities providing appropriate care, making the regulation sufficient to dispense with individualized hearings on placement. Additionally, the court found that automatic review was not required by the due process clause, as INS procedures provided for a right to have deportability decisions reviewed, in a context where the juveniles were able to exercise that right intelligently. 8 U.S.C. § 1252. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993) (Scalia, J.).

After the case returned to the district court, the plaintiffs filed a motion in November 1993 to enforce the earlier consent decree regarding conditions of confinement. They argued that the decree had been violated in several respects, in that: (1) the detained minors were non-delinquent children forced to endure prison-like treatment and restraints on their liberty; (2) the class members were subject to inappropriate disciplinary practices and unofficial physical abuse; (3) the detained class lacked adequate education or reading materials; (4) the class members were also denied any adequate recreation; and (5) the INS did nothing to assist the minors to understand the proceedings against them. The plaintiffs sought an order barring the INS from incarcerating class members in juvenile halls and other facilities not licensed for the care of dependent minors or, alternatively, directing the INS to comply with specific state standards protecting nondelinquent minors, as well as those standards expressly set out in the decree. We do not have information on the resolution of this motion.

The Flores Settlement and Its Early Enforcement

In the late summer of 1996, the parties executed a comprehensive settlement of the case. Their Settlement Agreement set out nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody of the INS. It superseded all previous INS policies inconsistent with the terms of the agreement, which would expire in 5 years (or earlier, with substantial compliance) and had monitoring, reporting, and enforcement provisions. The Agreement provided for payment to plaintiffs' counsel of $374,110.09 in full settlement of their attorneys' fees and costs claims.

The settlement resulted, among other things, in annual compliance reports filed with the court. The case docket shows that in December 2001, Judge Kelleher entered a stipulated order that the Agreement would terminate 45 days after defendants' publication of final regulations implementing the agreement. However, those regulations were never published, and so the Agreement remained in effect.

Over time, disputes surfaced. On November 14, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement. Years of discovery disputes and meetings with the court followed, with the parties finally amicably resolving their differences and a withdrawal of the enforcement motion on June 6, 2007.

Plaintiffs' 2015 Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement in Response to ICE's No-Release Policy

In the summer of 2014, a surge of Central American family migration led to numerous changes in policy by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including its subordinate agencies, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which between them had succeeded INS as the relevant immigration agencies. ICE adopted a blanket policy to detain all female-headed families, including children, in secure facilities for the duration of the proceedings that determined whether they were entitled to remain in the United States.

On February 2, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement, arguing that this "no-release" policy violated the Agreement. More specifically, the plaintiffs challenged: (1) ICE's no-release policy, which the plaintiffs argued breached the Agreement's requirements that the U.S. minimize the detention of children and consider releasing class members to available custodians; (2) ICE's practice of confining children in secure, unlicensed facilities, which the plaintiffs argued breached the Agreement’s requirement that the U.S. hold class members that they do not release in facilities that are licensed to care for dependent minors; and (3) ICE's practice of exposing children in Border Patrol custody to "harsh, substandard" conditions and treatment, which the plaintiffs argued breached the Agreement’s requirement that the U.S. provide class members with a minimum level of care even while they await release or transfer to a licensed placement.

On February 27, 2015, DHS both opposed the motion to enforce and filed a motion to amend the Agreement, which the plaintiffs opposed. The case had since been assigned to Judge Dolly Gee, and after a hearing in April, Judge Gee decided for the plaintiffs in all respects. 212 F. Supp. 3d 864 (C.D. Cal. July 24, 2015). Pointing to the Settlement Agreement's text, she rejected the U.S.'s argument that the decree only protected unaccompanied minors (only minors apprehended with a female relative were covered by the challenged policies). She agreed with the plaintiffs that ICE's blanket no-release policy could not be reconciled with the Agreement's grant to class members of a right to preferential release to a parent—even though that meant that ICE would generally need to release the accompanying parent, as well, as long as doing so would not create a flight risk or a safety risk. Judge Gee further found that both the unlicensed and secure status of the family detention facilities were non-compliant with the consent decree. She held that the fact that no state agency existed to license these types of facilities, which housed families rather than just children, did not mean that the licensing requirement in the decree should be disregarded. Rather, the impossibility of licensure cut in favor of release.

In addition, Judge Gee explained that the U.S. violated the Agreement when it placed class members in Border Patrol holding cells for a few days, pending their transfer to family facilities: "It is true that the Agreement holds Defendants to a lower standard—'safe and sanitary'—with respect to the temporary holding cells. But Defendants have wholly failed to meet even that minimal standard." Id. at 881. Judge Gee rejected each of the U.S.'s arguments seeking amendment of the Decree based on purported changes in law and fact. These covered much of the same ground as the enforcement motion. Most importantly, the U.S. sought to exclude accompanied minors from the Decree's protections and to eliminate licensure requirements for family detention. The Court declined to amend the Decree.

Instead, the Court entered an Order to Show Cause, proposing significant remediation to bring the U.S. into compliance, and requiring full briefing on that proposal by mid-August. On August 21, 2015, the Court rejected the U.S.'s request that the court reconsider the remediation requirements. Judge Gee found that the U.S. had not demonstrated a material change in fact or law meriting a reconsideration. She ordered the U.S. to implement the following changes no later than October 23, 2015: (1) make and record prompt and continuous efforts toward family reunification and the release of class members; (2) unless otherwise required by the Agreement or law release class members without unnecessary delay to parents (including parents apprehended with class members) or other guardians in accordance with the Agreement; (3) refrain from detaining accompanied class members in facilities that were unlicensed or otherwise failed to meet the standards set forth in the Agreement; (4) release accompanying parents of class members in accordance with applicable laws; (5) monitor detention facilities to ensure that they meet the living conditions and other standards required by the Agreement; and (6) provide class counsel with collected statistical information on a monthly basis. 212 F. Supp. 3d 907 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2015).

On September 18, 2015, the U.S. appealed Judge Gee's holding that the Agreement applied to all minors in immigration custody, what they perceived to be her order to release the parents of minors, and her denial of their motion to modify the Agreement. On July 6, 2016, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that the Agreement applied to accompanied minors and its denial of the U.S.'s motion to modify the Agreement. However, the Court of Appeals reversed Judge Gee's holding to the extent that it might create a new duty for the U.S. to release the parents of accompanied minors. 828 F.3d 898 (9th Cir. July 6, 2016). The judgment took effect on August 30, 2016. (Judge Gee later responded to the Ninth Circuit's holding by denying that she had intended to create affirmative rights for adults under the consent decree, and had merely intended to state that the U.S. should adhere to existing law and regulations in the Ninth Circuit on the subject of mandatory detention and bond hearings for detainees.)

Further proceedings continued in the district court, including a second motion to enforce that the plaintiffs filed on May 19, 2016. The plaintiffs alleged that the U.S., in defiance of Judge Gee's summer 2015 holding, was still holding members of the plaintiff class under conditions that violated the terms of the Agreement. They asked the Judge to issue an additional order requiring the U.S. to adhere to the terms of the Agreement, with the intention of making the U.S.'s obligations under the settlement Agreement more clear. They also asked for a special monitor to be appointed to oversee the U.S.'s compliance with the terms of the Agreement.

Court Order Mandating Compliance with Bond Hearing Provision of Settlement Agreement

During a July 22, 2016 status conference, Judge Gee gave the parties until August 19 to conduct additional settlement negotiations before Judge George H. King, the Chief Judge of the Central District of California. The parties had not reached a settlement by September 15, 2016. Judge Gee heard both oral argument and evidence on several dates that followed. After briefing, on January 20, 2017, Judge Gee issued an order that the defendants were in breach of the Flores Agreement by denying minors in removal proceedings the right to a bond redetermination hearing before an Immigration Judge in every case. Judge Gee disagreed with the defendants' argument that the 2002 Homeland Security Act (HSA) and 2008 Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) superseded the bond-hearing provision of the Agreement. Rather, Judge Gee agreed with the plaintiffs that savings clauses of these statutes preserved the relevant provision of the Agreement, which provided a right to bond hearings not addressed by the HSA or TVPRA. Consequently, Judge Gee granted the plaintiffs' motion to enforce HHS's compliance with the bond-hearing provision of the Flores Agreement. 392 F. Supp. 3d 1144 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 2017).

On January 30, 2017, the Court held another evidentiary hearing on the plaintiffs' May 19, 2016 motion to enforce the Agreement. The plaintiffs argued that the defendants were not required to place class members in expedited removal proceedings or subject them to "mandatory detention," and that an expedited removal order was not a final order of deportation or exclusion.

In the meantime, on January 25, 2017, the defendants filed an application for a stay of the Court's January 20, 2017 order enforcing the bond-hearing provision of the Flores Agreement, pending appeal authorization. Judge Gee denied the stay on February 3, 2017. The defendants filed a notice of appeal on February 17, 2017, and sought an "emergency" stay pending resolution of the appeal from the Ninth Circuit. The defendants argued that by mandating bond hearings for unaccompanied immigrant minors in HHS custody, the district court's order infringed on HHS's statutory directive and implementing guidance, placed extra-statutory burdens on EOIR's Immigration Courts, and conflicted with BIA and Ninth Circuit precedent. The court's motions panel—Judges Clifton, Canby, and Friedland—granted the defendants' motion for a stay on February 24, 2017, expressing no view on the merits, but finding that the defendants had established a sufficient showing of irreparable harm to justify preservation of the status quo rather than immediate implementation of the order. The motions panel set a briefing schedule and calendared the case before a randomly selected panel in April 2017. Oral argument was held on April 18, 2017, before Circuit Judges Marsha Berzon, Stephen Reinhardt, and Wallace Tashima.

Back in the District Court, the plaintiffs filed a June 14, 2017 joint request for an order for their May 19, 2016 motion to enforce the Agreement. On June 27, 2017, Judge Gee issued an order, granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion. On the whole, Judge Gee found that the defendants were substantially non-compliant with many aspects of the Agreement. Specifically, the defendants had failed to ensure detainees' access to food, water, sanitation, temperature controls, sleeping conditions, and information about their legal rights. For minors specifically, the defendants had failed to make and record continuous efforts to release minors where possible, and to otherwise place them in secure licensed facilities. Judge Gee wrote: "Defendants entered into the Flores Agreement and now they do not want to perform—but want this Court to bless the breach. That is not how contracts work." 394 F. Supp. 3d 1041.

Judge Gee ordered the defendants to propose a Juvenile Coordinator to monitor the Agreement within 30 days. (This obligation had existed in the original Agreement but apparently no such person had ever been appointed.) Judge Gee specified that the Juvenile Coordinator would report periodically to the court, which would again assess the defendants' compliance after a year from the Coordinator's appointment. If progress was still insufficient at that point, the court would then consider the plaintiffs' request for an independent monitor.

In late July 2017, the defendants proposed Juvenile Coordinators, which Judge Gee approved on August 24. The Juvenile Coordinators submitted a proposal for how they would bring the Rio Grande Valley Sector CBP Stations into compliance with the Agreement. On October 18, Judge Gee set a schedule for future compliance status reports and the plaintiffs' responses; deciding to hold a June 29, 2018 status conference on whether the defendants were at that time in substantial compliance with the June 27, 2017 order.

On July 3, 2017, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay of the district court's January 20, 2017 order (enforcing the Flores Agreement's provision mandating bond hearings for unaccompanied immigrant minors in HHS custody) pending appeal, effective immediately. The Court followed this with an opinion written by Judge Reinhardt, finding that neither the HSA nor TVPRA statutes had invalidated Paragraph 24A of the Agreement, which provides that a "minor in deportation proceedings shall be afforded a bond redetermination hearing before an immigration judge." Judge Reinhardt wrote:
Our reading of the statutes is dictated by the ordinary tenets of statutory construction. By their plain text, neither law explicitly terminates the bond-hearing requirement for unaccompanied minors. Moreover, the statutory framework enacted by the HSA and TVPRA does not grant ORR exclusive and autonomous control over the detention of unaccompanied minors. Rather, the statutes leave ample room for immigration judges to conduct bond hearings for these children. Additionally, holding that the HSA and TVPRA do not deny unaccompanied minors the right to a bond hearing under Paragraph 24A affirms Congress's intent in passing both laws. These statutes sought to protect a uniquely vulnerable population: unaccompanied children. In enacting the HSA and TVPRA, Congress desired to better provide for unaccompanied minors. Depriving these children of their existing right to a bond hearing is incompatible with such an aim.
862 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. July 5, 2017).

The defendants did not file a petition for rehearing en banc. The Ninth Circuit's mandate came into effect on Sept. 28, 2017. The plaintiffs requested $448,540 in attorneys' fees in the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 1, 2017. However, on Jan. 9 the parties jointly asked the Court to stay the proceedings and place the matter in mediation; the Court did so on Jan. 16.

Back in the district court, on Aug. 28, 2017, the defendants appealed Judge Gee's June 27, 2017 order to enforce the Agreement. The Ninth Circuit opened a new appeals docket (No. 17-56297) the same day. The defendants filed their brief on Jan. 5, 2018. The Ninth Circuit set oral argument for the week of Dec. 10, 2018.

On Nov. 14, 2017, Judge Gee ordered the defendants to pay the plaintiffs $1,061,160.80 in attorneys' fees and $3,848.82 in costs and expenses. On Jan. 16, the defendants appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit, which opened a new appeals docket (No. 18-55063) the next day. However, the Ninth Circuit later closed the docket on Apr. 27 after the parties moved for voluntary dismissal.

Plaintiffs' 2018 Motion for Further Enforcement of the Agreement

On Apr. 16, 2018, in the district court, the plaintiffs moved to enforce the Agreement, and the defendants then filed an ex parte application seeking relief from the Agreement in the form of (1) exemption from the Agreement’s release provisions so that ICE could detain alien minors who had arrived with their parent or legal guardian together in ICE family residential facilities, and (2) exemption from the Agreement’s state licensure requirement. On July 9, 2018, the court denied such relief, holding that the request was a "thinly veiled motion for reconsideration" and that there was no "showing of changed circumstances that the parties could not have foreseen at the time of their Agreement." 2018 WL 4945000. The defendants appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit, which in turn assigned the latest appeal case number, 18-56204.

Shortly after, on July 30, the district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the Agreement. The court held that the plaintiffs sought procedural remedies not available in the Agreement but that they were "entitled to only such relief as is explicitly or implicitly authorized" in the Agreement. Ultimately, the court held that it had the authority to determine if the defendants had breached the Agreement. Accordingly, the court ordered the defendants to (1) transfer class members out of the Shiloh Treatment Center if they posed a risk of harm, (2) abandon unnecessary security measures at Shiloh and allow class members to make private phone calls, (3) provide notice of reasons for placement in secured facility, (4) take out of secured facilities class members who did not meet certain conditions, (5) comply with all Texas child welfare laws, (6) stop requiring ORR approval prior to release, and (7) stop requiring post-release services be in place prior to the release. 2018 WL 10162328.

Once again, the defendants appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit, which assigned the appeal case number 18-56286. However, the Ninth Circuit later closed the docket on Mar. 22, 2019, after the defendants moved for voluntary dismissal.

On Oct. 10, 2018, the plaintiffs cross-appealed the July 30th decision to the Ninth Circuit to the extent that it denied the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the Agreement; the Ninth Circuit assigned the cross-appeal case number 18-56335. However, the Ninth Circuit later closed the docket on Apr. 1, 2019, after the plaintiffs moved for voluntary dismissal.

Due to the ongoing issues of non-compliance with the Agreement, Judge Gee also found it necessary to appoint an Independent Monitor to ensure compliance with the June 27, 2017, and July 30, 2018 orders (as well as other orders issued during the history of the case). On Oct. 5, 2018, the court appointed Andrea Sheridan Ordin as the Special Master/Independent Monitor ("the Monitor") of the Agreement. However, on Oct. 12 the defendants requested reconsideration of the appointment; the defendants were concerned that the order expanded the scope of the Monitor's oversight to include ORR's compliance with the July 30 order, which had found ORR in partial breach of the Agreement. On Nov. 5, the court denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration.

On Nov. 2, 2018, the plaintiffs gave notice that they would be filing another motion to enforce the Agreement, seeking a classwide order declaring the defendants in anticipatory breach of the Agreement, and enjoining the defendants from implementing a new regulation that they proposed on Sept. 7, 2018. That regulation, 83 Fed. Reg. 45486, sought to create a federal alternative to the Agreement's requirement that facilities be state-licensed, which would allow DHS to detain families together until immigration proceedings were completed. Where state licensing was unavailable, a family detention would still be considered "licensed" if DHS hired a third party to ensure compliance with ICE-established standards for family residential centers. The defendants claimed that these regulations would implement the Flores Agreement and thereby trigger the termination of the Agreement 45 days after publication, per the 2001 stipulation in the case.

On Nov. 21, Judge Gee deferred ruling on the plaintiffs' motion to enforce the Agreement until the defendants published the final regulations, finding that the plaintiffs would not suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief because their motion prompted the defendants to affirm that they would not immediately implement the final rule. Once the final regulations were issued, both parties would file briefs with the court addressing the question of whether the regulations were consistent with the terms of the Flores Agreement.

Back on Nov. 13, the Ninth Circuit consolidated two of the defendants' appeals (17-56297 and 18-56204). Then, on Dec. 4, 2018, the defendants appealed the district court's Oct. 5 and Nov. 5 orders (relating to the appointment of the Monitor and the denial of the defendants' motion for reconsideration of the appointment, respectively). The Ninth Circuit assigned the appeal case number 18-56596. This appeal was voluntarily dismissed upon the motion of the government on May 22, 2019.

Plaintiffs' 2019 Motion to Enforce and Application for TRO in Response to Poor Conditions of Confinement

On June 26, 2019, plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order (TRO), alleging violations of the settlement agreement. The TRO demanded that the government remedy conditions amounting to a “public health emergency” at its El Paso and Rio Grande Valley CBP facilities. The District Court granted the TRO, ordering the government to immediately permit medical professionals and intensive case management teams access to the affected facilities and class members held therein. The following day the government filed its response, and on June 28, the District Court ordered the parties to participate in expedited mediation before the Monitor to remedy the conditions at issue. This matter remains subject to ongoing mediation.

The same day, the plaintiffs also filed a Motion to Enforce the Settlement Agreement. The motion alleged that the minors’ confinement at an unlicensed detention center in Homestead, Florida violated provisions of the settlement agreement. According to the plaintiffs, this practice resulted in the government routinely failing to, “expeditiously transfer minors to licensed[, non-secure] facilities,” regulated by child welfare and foster care authorities. Detention at Homestead purportedly resulted in detained children being held for periods of up to several months in prison-like conditions. Through this motion, the plaintiffs requested that the District Court order class members to be transferred to a licensed detention center within 14 days of arrival at the Homestead facility or released to a sponsor. On Aug. 2, 2019, the government responded by contending that the facility was not a “secure” juvenile detention facility per the terms of the agreement. The government argued that it was under no obligation to expeditiously transfer detained children to licensed facilities to conform to the terms of the settlement agreement.

On Aug. 15, 2019, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the defendants’ consolidated appeal (17-56297). In a panel decision authored by Judge Berzon, the Court held that the issues raised by the government were beyond its jurisdiction. The Court noted that the terms of the settlement agreement limited the scope of the Ninth Circuit’s review to modifications of the agreement. Flores v. Barr, 934 F.3d 910, 914 (9th Cir. 2019). Here, the Court held, the orders of the District Court properly enforced the terms of the agreement and did not alter its content.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court’s order requiring that the government provide specific hygiene and sleeping arrangements was an interpretation of the agreement’s demand that minors be held in “safe and sanitary” conditions. Id. at 912. Further, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Court’s order that the government make and record efforts aimed at releasing class members subject to expedited removal was consistent with the INA and the Ninth Circuit’s prior interpretation that the Flores Settlement, “creates a presumption in favor of releasing minors.” Id. Last, the Ninth Circuit considered the District Court’s order that the detaining of minors in secure, unlicensed family detention centers was prohibited under the agreement. The Ninth Circuit rejected the government’s complaint as to this order, holding that the government failed to challenge the order until after its appeal had already been submitted. Id. at 914.

Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce in Response to the Government's Final Rule and Notice of Termination of Settlement Agreement

On Aug. 23, 2019, the government issued a final rule in the Federal Register relating to the “Apprehension, Processing, Care, and Custody of Alien Minors and Unaccompanied Alien Children,” which purported to constitute final regulations implementing the Flores Settlement. On Aug. 30 the government filed a notice of termination of the Agreement and a motion to the same effect. According to the government, the final rule satisfied the government’s obligation to publish regulations implementing the provisions of the settlement agreement. The government claimed that the final rule sufficiently addressed the “main substantive provisions of the Agreement” as to conditions of confinement and procedural rights owed to detained minors.

The same day, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental motion to enforce in response to the government’s issuance of the final rule. According to the plaintiffs, the final rule was in violation of the agreement’s mandate that, “[t]he final regulations shall not be inconsistent with the terms of th[e] Agreement.” They claimed that the rule: (1) permitted, “DHS to detain accompanied class members indefinitely;” (2) allowed, “DHS to detain children in secure facilities having no state license to house children;” (3) stripped, “children of their right to neutral and detached review of decisions of the Office of Refugee Resettlement […] to detain them in lieu of release to their parents and other available custodians;” and (4) replaced, “the Settlement’s mandatory and enforceable provisions with aspirational declarations of dubious force and effect.” The plaintiffs requested that the District Court order the defendants’ continued adherence with the Flores Settlement.

On Sept. 27, 2019, the District Court issued a permanent injunction denying the government’s motion to terminate the Settlement and enjoining its implementation of the new regulations. According to the Court, the final rule did not have the effect of terminating the agreement and the government had not established a valid alternative reason to terminate. Flores v. Barr, 407 F. Supp. 3d 909 (C.D. Cal.). The District Court’s finding was based on various provisions of the final rule that were held not to conform to the Flores Agreement. These breaches concerned the fact that the final rule did not comport with the settlement agreement as to both its standards regarding acceptable conditions of confinement and its provisions ensuring appropriate oversight over the detention of minors. Further, the final rule failed to provide mandatory protections stipulated under the agreement and to follow criteria for determining when detention should be imposed on minors. Hence, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce insofar as it sought to ensure the Flores Settlement would remain in effect.

On November 14, 2019, the government appealed the District Court’s permanent injunction to the Ninth Circuit. In its opening brief, the government argued that the district court failed to consider "dramatically changed circumstances," "including the promulgation of comprehensive new rules that the parties themselves envisioned as terminating the Agreement, statutes implementing much of the Agreement over a decade ago, and a crisis of irregular migration by families and children." Moreover, the government argued that the district court focused too heavily on the "outdated" decree and its history of compliance, rather than "evaluating the agencies chosen solutions" and the equities of the final rule going forward. The plaintiffs maintained that the district court did not abuse its discretion and that "the new regulations are inconsistent with the agreement and fail to trigger the agreement's sunset clause." The court vacated the scheduled oral argument in April due to the outbreak of COVID-19 and it has yet to be rescheduled.

COVID-19 Proceedings

On March 26, 2020, plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) due to the nationwide outbreak of COVID-19. They sought an order to "promptly release children to available custodians, or if they are not entitled to release under Paragraph 14, to transfer them to non-congregate settings, or justify why it has done neither." The plaintiffs argued that COVID-19 threatened children and the unprecedented social distancing measures being enforced to combat the transmission of COVID-19 "are all but impossible for children held in congregate detention." The plaintiffs asserted that a TRO was appropriate because continued detention despite the risk posed by COVID-19 violated the plaintiffs' rights to prompt release and safe and sanitary conditions of confinement under the settlement agreement. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that "increased risk of exposure to a deadly virus by virtue of placement in congregate detention facility for children who are neither flight risks nor a danger represents a paradigmatic example of imminent irreparable harm."

The next day the government filed its opposition to the application for TRO, arguing that the TRO should not be granted because the plaintiffs had not established that there had been any violations of the agreement, that the requested relief would "increase the risk of harm to class members in ICE and ORR custody by eliminating existing protections and creating confusion," and because "Plaintiffs’ proposed order would also have the Court order extensive procedural and coercive relief that is found nowhere within the four corners of the Agreement."

On the same day, Judge Gee issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' TRO application. Judge Gee declined to order an immediate release of all class members but concluded that "an orderly, yet prompt, disposition of minors’ claims of suitable placement is a responsible way to proceed." Judge Gee ordered that the government, by April 10, 2020, show cause why a permanent injunction should not issue requiring the government to make and record efforts to release class members and "enjoining Defendants from keeping minors who have suitable custodians in congregate custody." Moreover, Judge Gee ordered that ORR and ICE facilities make themselves available for inspection and provide an accounting of their efforts to release those in custody by April 6. Judge Gee found that plaintiffs demonstrated "serious questions as to the merits of their claim that ICE has breached the FSA with regard to the provision of safe and sanitary conditions and appropriate medical care and living accommodations in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak." Judge Gee also concluded that plaintiffs "have a strong likelihood of succeeding on their claim that both ICE and ORR have breached the FSA in their failure to release minors to suitable custodians in a prompt manner and to record their continuous efforts towards minors’ release."

On April 6, the defendants filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion for TRO, which acted as a show of cause as to why preliminary injunction should not be issued. The defendants asserted that a preliminary injunction should not be issued because the plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of demonstrating that defendants had violated the Flores Agreement. Furthermore, the defendants contended that a preliminary injunction would hold the defendants to a requirement not found in the Flores Agreement, "that any ‘unexplained delay in releasing a child in ORR and ICE custody. violates [] Paragraphs 14 and 18 of the FSA.’” In their reply to the defendants' opposition, the plaintiffs argued that requiring the defendants to share the efforts towards prompt and continuous release does not modify the terms of the Agreement. Moreover, the plaintiffs asserted that a preliminary injunction was appropriate because preliminary reports indicated that the TRO resulted in defendants releasing children without unnecessary delay.

In accordance with the TRO, defendants submitted spreadsheets with information about the class members, containing detail about each minor's circumstances and "detailed summaries of efforts to release the minors and reasons why the minors remained in custody." Defendants also submitted video tours of selected facilities and reports about steps taken and areas of improvement with regards to compliance with COVID-19 guidance. From this data, plaintiffs identified "several issues that may result in unnecessary delay of minors’ release in violation of the FSA." Plaintiffs also argued that ICE had not sufficiently implemented protective measures against COVID-19 and requested a preliminary injunction ordering defendants to "abide by the FSA and to continue to require, as an interim measure, that the agencies provide summaries of efforts towards family reunification or release of minors to the Monitor and Class Counsel."

In light of the materials submitted by the defendants and the questions raised by the plaintiffs, on April 10 Judge Gee issued an order extending the TRO by 14 days and required the defendants, by April 24, to show cause as to why a preliminary injunction should not be issued. Moreover, Judge Gee granted the defendants request to file a second supplemental response to plaintiffs' concerns about conditions at the facilities and their questions "regarding whether certain of their policies have caused unnecessary delay in the release of Class Members in violation of Paragraphs 14 and 18 of the FSA. Judge Gee ordered that defendants' second supplemental response be filed by April 17 and that Plaintiffs may file their reply by April 22.

After monthlong briefing, on April 24, Judge Gee issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' request for enforcement of the FSA. Judge Gee ordered defendants to "continue to make every effort to promptly and safely release Class members who have suitable custodians." Judge Gee also found that because the COVID-19 pandemic made fingerprint checks difficult to obtain, defendants' requirement of a fingerprint-based check violated the FSA. Judge Gee also ordered that ORR and ICE Juvenile Coordinators submit monthly reports documenting their compliance with the court's order. Following this order, ICE and ORR coordinators filed interim reports on May 15. Plaintiffs filed responses to each report, identifying deficiencies and raising concerns about defendants' compliance with the FSA, CDC guidance, and court orders.

On May 22, Judge Gee issued an order about the updated juvenile coordinator reports, highlighting deficiencies with defendants' compliance. Judge Gee stated that "[c]ontrary to the April 24, 2020 Order, ORR has not provisionally released any minors whose vetted sponsor are unable to obtain fingerprints due to pandemic-related closures." Judge Gee ordered the provisional release of one minor whose release has been delayed due to fingerprinting. Judge Gee also found that ICE's report "continues to show lack of compliance with Paragraph 18 of the FSA, which requires Defendants to 'make and record the prompt and continuous efforts on its part toward family reunification and the release of the minor." Finally, Judge Gee expressed concern with the implementation of public health guidances at the FRCs. The order required defendants to file updated reports by June 8 and the parties to confer regarding appropriate protocols to inform detained guardians about their children’s rights under the FSA.

A video status conference is scheduled for June 19 to discuss compliance with the Court's orders. More coming soon.

Mike Fagan - 07/02/2008
Sarah Prout - 09/17/2015
Ryan Berry - 08/09/2016
Ava Morgenstern - 05/05/2018
Virginia Weeks - 10/04/2018
Aaron Gurley - 05/27/2020


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Equal Protection
Freedom of speech/association
Content of Injunction
Discrimination Prohibition
Monitoring
Recordkeeping
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
General
Access to lawyers or judicial system
Classification / placement
Conditions of confinement
Confinement/isolation
Discharge & termination plans
Education
Family reunification
Food service / nutrition / hydration
Habeas Corpus
Juveniles
Over/Unlawful Detention
Placement in detention facilities
Recreation / Exercise
Relative caretakers
Sanitation / living conditions
Search policies
Youth / Adult separation
Immigration/Border
Constitutional rights
Deportation - procedure
Detention - conditions
Detention - criteria
Detention - procedures
Family
Immigration lawyers
Refugees
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Medical/Mental Health
COVID-19 Release Granted
COVID-19 Release Requested
National Origin/Ethnicity
Hispanic
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Non-government for profit
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Mandamus, 28 U.S.C. § 1361
Defendant(s) Behavioral Systems Southwest
Corrections Corporation of America
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
Plaintiff Description All minors apprehended by the INS (predecessor to DHS) in the Western Region of the United States
Indexed Lawyer Organizations ACLU Chapters (any)
ACLU National (all projects)
ACLU of Southern California
Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law
MALDEF
National Center for Youth Law
Youth Law Center
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Attorneys fees
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 1997 - n/a
Filed 07/11/1985
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-TX-0041 : Grassroots Leadership v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (State Court)
IM-DC-0034 : Garza v. Hargan (D.D.C.)
IM-CA-0124 : L.R. (Lucas R.) v. Azar (C.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Flores v. Barr
www.jlc.org
Date: Sep. 4, 2019
By: Juvenile Law Center
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Flores v. Reno
Date: Jul. 5, 2017
By: National Center for Youth Law
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Documents Relating to Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement on Minors in Immigration Custody
www.aila.org
Date: Jul. 5, 2017
By: American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Implementation of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
The Washington Post
Date: May 22, 2017
By: Jefferson Sessions (U.S. Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
Citation: 82 Fed. Reg. Presidential Documents 8793 (Jan. 27, 2017)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 25, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Meet the father of the landmark lawsuit that secured basic rights for immigrant minors
http://www.abajournal.com/
Date: Feb. 1, 2016
By: Lorelei Laird (ABA Journal)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  The Oyez Project, Reno, Attorney General v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993).
www.oyez.org
Date: Mar. 23, 1993
By: Oyez Project (IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:85-cv-04544-RJK (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/22/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, and Relief in the Nature of Mandamus [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/11/1985
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings
IM-CA-0002-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/24/1987
Memorandum of Understanding Re Compromise of Class Action: Conditions of Detention [ECF# 20]
IM-CA-0002-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/30/1987
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum of Decision and Order [Re: Plaintiff's Summary Judgment] (681 F.Supp. 665) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0011.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/07/1988
Source: Google Scholar
[Ninth Circuit] Opinion (934 F.2d 991)
IM-CA-0002-0012.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/07/1990
Source: Google Scholar
[Ninth Circuit] Opinion for publication (942 F.2d 1352)
IM-CA-0002-0009.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/09/1991
News Article, "INS Policy on Alien Youth Struck Down"
IM-CA-0002-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/12/1991
News Article, "Judges Trade Fire in Ruling on INS Kid-Detention Regs"
IM-CA-0002-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/12/1991
Correspondence
IM-CA-0002-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/23/1991
[Supreme Court] Granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari (503 U.S. 905)
IM-CA-0002-0014.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/02/1992
Source: Westlaw
Supreme Court Opinion (507 U.S. 292)
IM-CA-0002-0015.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 03/23/1993
Source: Westlaw
[Ninth Circuit] Order (992 F.2d 243)
IM-CA-0002-0013.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 05/18/1993
Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Consent Decree
IM-CA-0002-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/15/1993
Stipulated Settlement Agreement
IM-CA-0002-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/17/1997
Annotated Statutes
IM-CA-0002-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/23/2007
Civil Minutes - General [Includes Tentative Ruling on Motions to Enforce Settlement of Class Action and to Amend Settlement Agreement] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0016.pdf | External Link | Detail
Date: 04/24/2015
Order and Opinion (212 F.Supp.3d 864) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0050.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/24/2015
Source: Google Scholar
Order Re: Response to Order to Show Cause (212 F.Supp.3d 907) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0051.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/21/2015
Source: Google Scholar
Motion [Proposing Appointment of Special Master], Proposed Orders [ECF# 201, 201-7, 201-8)]
IM-CA-0002-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/19/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibit 1-13 in Support of Motion to Enforce and for Appointment of Special Master [ECF# 201-1]
IM-CA-0002-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/19/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibit 14-18 in Support of Motion to Enforce and for Appointment of Special Master [ECF# 201-2]
IM-CA-0002-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/19/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibit 19 in Support of Motion to Enforce and for Appointment of Special Master [ECF# 201-3, 201-4]
IM-CA-0002-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/29/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibit 20-47 in Support of Motion to Enforce and for Appointment of Special Master [ECF# 201-5]
IM-CA-0002-0023.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/29/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibit 48-69 in Support of Motion to Enforce and for Appointment of Special Master [ECF# 201-6]
IM-CA-0002-0024.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/29/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendant's Response in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion [and Exhibit Index] [ECF# 208, 208-1]
IM-CA-0002-0025.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibits 1-10 as to Response in Opposition to Motion 208 [CBP Related] [ECF# 208-2]
IM-CA-0002-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibits 11-16 as to Response in Opposition to Motion 208 [CBP Related] [ECF# 212-2]
IM-CA-0002-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibits 17-19 as to Response in Opposition to Motion 208 [CBP Expert Related] [ECF# 214-4]
IM-CA-0002-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibits 20-21 as to Response in Opposition to Motion 208 [ICE Related] [ECF# 215-1, 216-1 to 216-3]
IM-CA-0002-0029.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibits 22, 26-29 as to Response in Opposition to Motion 208 [ICE, USCIS, EOIR Related] [ECF# 217-1 to 217-5]
IM-CA-0002-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/03/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 231/Ninth Circuit] (828 F.3d 898)
IM-CA-0002-0031.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/06/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Status Report [ECF# 237]
IM-CA-0002-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/29/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Notice of Motion and Motion to Enforce Settlement [ECF# 239 (& 239-1 to 239-3)]
IM-CA-0002-0034.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/12/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order re: Defendants' Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing [ECF# 274] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0035.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/07/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Statement of Uncontroverted Facts [ECF# 288]
IM-CA-0002-0036.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/06/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Ex-Parte Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Statement of Uncontroverted Facts, Memo of Points and Authorities, and Proposed Order [ECF# 291, 291-1, 291-2]
IM-CA-0002-0037.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/09/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order re: Defendants' Ex Parte Motion to Strike and for Enlargement of Time [ECF# 292] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0038.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/12/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Corrected Statement of Uncontroverted Facts [ECF# 293]
IM-CA-0002-0039.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/12/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Statement of Genuine Disputes of Material Facts [ECF# 297]
IM-CA-0002-0040.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/16/2016
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief for Appellants
IM-CA-0002-0053.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/05/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order re: Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce [ECF# 318] (2017 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 144827) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0041.pdf | LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order re: Defendants' Evidentiary Objections [ECF# 320] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0042.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Ex Parte Application for a Stay pending Appeal Authorization [ECF# 322 (& 322-1 to 322-3)]
IM-CA-0002-0043.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Memorandum re: Mandatory Detention and Final Orders of Deportation [ECF# 337, 337-1]
IM-CA-0002-0044.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Ninth Circuit] Emergency Motion to Stay District Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 10325588]
IM-CA-0002-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Ninth Circuit] Plaintiffs' / Appellees' Opposition to Emergency Motion to Stay Order Enforcing Settlement of Class Action [Ct. of App. ECF# 10325667]
IM-CA-0002-0045.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Ninth Circuit] Reply in Support of Emergency Motion to Stay District Court Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 10327940]
IM-CA-0002-0046.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Ninth Circuit] Order [Ct. of App. ECF# 10331720]
IM-CA-0002-0047.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce and Appoint a Special Monitor [In Chambers] [ECF# 363] (2017 WL 6060252) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0048.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 06/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion (862 F.3d 863)
IM-CA-0002-0049.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 07/05/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs [ECF# 383] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0052.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/14/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Memorandum in Support of Motion to Enforce Class Action Settlement [ECF# 409-1]
IM-CA-0002-0054.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/16/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Re Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce Class Action Settlement [ECF# 470] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0055.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/30/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Appointing Special Master/Independent Monitor [363] [469] [470] [ECF# 494] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0056.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/05/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 624] (934 F.3d 910)
IM-CA-0002-0057.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/15/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Permanent Injunction [ECF# 690] (407 F.Supp.3d 909) (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0058.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 09/27/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause re: Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 733]
IM-CA-0002-0059.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/26/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Response to Plaintiffs' Request for a Temporary Restraining Order [ECF# 736]
IM-CA-0002-0060.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/27/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
In Chamber - Order Re Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Application for Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction [733] [ECF# 740] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0061.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/28/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 746]
IM-CA-0002-0062.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/06/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibit 6 of Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [DKT# 746] [ECF# 746-6]
IM-CA-0002-0063.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/06/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibits 1 through 5 of Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [DKT# 746] [ECF# 746-1 to 746-5]
IM-CA-0002-0064.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/06/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibits 7 through 14 of Defendants' Supplemental Response to Plaintiffs' Request for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction [DKT# 746] [ECF# 746-7 to 746-14]
IM-CA-0002-0065.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/06/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 754]
IM-CA-0002-0066.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/08/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibits A through H of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 754] [ECF# 754-1 to 754-8]
IM-CA-0002-0068.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/08/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Exhibits I through N of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 754] [ECF# 754-9 to 754-14]
IM-CA-0002-0069.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/08/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Extending Temporary Restraining Order and Permitting Supplemental Briefing [ECF# 768] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0070.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/10/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Proceedings: In Chambers—Order Re Plaintiffs' Motion to Enforce [ECF# 784] (C.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0002-0071.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/24/2020
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Berzon, Marsha Siegel (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0049 | IM-CA-0002-0057
Blackmun, Harry Andrew (Eighth Circuit, SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0015
Brunetti, Melvin T. (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0013
Canby, William Cameron Jr. (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0013
Fletcher, William A. (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0057
Fletcher, Betty Binns (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0012
Gee, Dolly Maizie (C.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0016 | IM-CA-0002-0031 | IM-CA-0002-0035 | IM-CA-0002-0038 | IM-CA-0002-0041 | IM-CA-0002-0042 | IM-CA-0002-0048 | IM-CA-0002-0049 | IM-CA-0002-0050 | IM-CA-0002-0051 | IM-CA-0002-0052 | IM-CA-0002-0055 | IM-CA-0002-0056 | IM-CA-0002-0058 | IM-CA-0002-0061 | IM-CA-0002-0070 | IM-CA-0002-0071 | IM-CA-0002-9000
George, Lloyd D. (D. Nev.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0012
Kelleher, Robert Joseph (C.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0002 | IM-CA-0002-0011
Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (Ninth Circuit, SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0015
Leavy, Edward (D. Or., FISCR, Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0013
Nelson, Dorothy Wright (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0013
Norris, William Albert (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0013
O'Connor, Sandra Day (SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0015
Rehnquist, William Hubbs (SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0015
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0049
Rosenberg, Alicia G. (C.D. Cal.) [Magistrate] show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Rymer, Pamela Ann (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0013
Scalia, Antonin (D.C. Circuit, SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0015
Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009 | IM-CA-0002-0013
Souter, David Hackett (First Circuit, SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0015
Tang, Thomas (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0013
Tashima, Atsushi Wallace (C.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0049 | IM-CA-0002-0057
Thomas, Clarence (D.C. Circuit, SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0015
Thompson, Bruce Rutherford (D. Nev.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0013
Wallace, John Clifford (S.D. Cal., Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0012 | IM-CA-0002-0013
White, Byron Raymond (SCOTUS) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0015 | IM-CA-0002-0054
Wiggins, Charles Edward (Ninth Circuit) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0013
Monitors/Masters Ordin, Andrea Sheridan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Adams, Crystal (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Ancar, Katina (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Argueta, Sylvia (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0004 | IM-CA-0002-0005
Askew, Kevin M (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Boswell, Susan G. (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0005
Bussiere, Alice (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0001 | IM-CA-0002-0003 | IM-CA-0002-0004 | IM-CA-0002-0005 | IM-CA-0002-0011 | IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-0034 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Cambria, Bridget (Pennsylvania) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0059 | IM-CA-0002-0066
Cloyd, Jennifer Kelleher (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-0059 | IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Cooper, Holly S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0034 | IM-CA-0002-0045 | IM-CA-0002-0054 | IM-CA-0002-0059 | IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Corrigan, Virginia Elizabeth (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0034 | IM-CA-0002-0045 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Demchak, Teresa (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0001 | IM-CA-0002-0003 | IM-CA-0002-0011
Desai, Neha (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Diwan, Shaila Rahman (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Echtman, Elyse D (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Felt, Daisy Ocampo (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Garcia, Elena (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-0036 | IM-CA-0002-0039 | IM-CA-0002-0044 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Hagar, John H. Jr. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0003 | IM-CA-0002-0011
Harman, Thomas Wayne (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Hing, Bill Ong (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0059 | IM-CA-0002-0066
Hoffman, Paul L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0001 | IM-CA-0002-0003 | IM-CA-0002-0004 | IM-CA-0002-0011
Holguín, Carlos R. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0001 | IM-CA-0002-0003 | IM-CA-0002-0004 | IM-CA-0002-0005 | IM-CA-0002-0009 | IM-CA-0002-0011 | IM-CA-0002-0012 | IM-CA-0002-0015 | IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-0034 | IM-CA-0002-0036 | IM-CA-0002-0039 | IM-CA-0002-0044 | IM-CA-0002-0045 | IM-CA-0002-0054 | IM-CA-0002-0059 | IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Iahdjian, Marcela (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Julian, Monica J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Juneja, Poonam (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Kathawala, Rene (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Kazantzis, Kyra A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Kirkham, Annette D. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-0059 | IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Manning, Katherine H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-0059 | IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Morales, James (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0001 | IM-CA-0002-0004 | IM-CA-0002-0005 | IM-CA-0002-0011
Mulligan, Jonathan P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0066
Natarajan, Ranjana (Texas) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Perry, Angela (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Pitts, Freya E. K. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Rosenbaum, Steven H. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Rosenbaum, Mark Dale (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0004 | IM-CA-0002-0005 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Rosenbaum, Stephen A (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0059 | IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Schey, Peter A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0001 | IM-CA-0002-0003 | IM-CA-0002-0004 | IM-CA-0002-0005 | IM-CA-0002-0011 | IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-0032 | IM-CA-0002-0034 | IM-CA-0002-0036 | IM-CA-0002-0039 | IM-CA-0002-0044 | IM-CA-0002-0045 | IM-CA-0002-0054 | IM-CA-0002-0059 | IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Schulman, Steven H. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Sorgen, Michael S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0019 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Viramontes, Angela (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Welch, Leecia (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0054 | IM-CA-0002-0066 | IM-CA-0002-9000
White, Carter Capps (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Willis, Jeffrey (Arizona) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0005
Zahradka, James (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Andrapalliyal, Vinita (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0033 | IM-CA-0002-0043 | IM-CA-0002-0046 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Blumenfeld, Stan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009
Bonner, Robert C. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0003 | IM-CA-0002-0011
Branda, Joyce R. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0043
Brosio, Frederick M. Jr. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0003 | IM-CA-0002-0011
Cartagena, Diego Jose (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Davila, Yamileth G. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Fabian, Sarah B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0025 | IM-CA-0002-0032 | IM-CA-0002-0033 | IM-CA-0002-0037 | IM-CA-0002-0040 | IM-CA-0002-0043 | IM-CA-0002-0046 | IM-CA-0002-0053 | IM-CA-0002-0060 | IM-CA-0002-0062 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Fan, Ian (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0003 | IM-CA-0002-0009 | IM-CA-0002-0011 | IM-CA-0002-0012
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0033 | IM-CA-0002-0043 | IM-CA-0002-0046 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Fresco, Leon (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0025 | IM-CA-0002-0032 | IM-CA-0002-0037 | IM-CA-0002-0040 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Ginsburg, Douglas E. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Hausman, Allen W. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0005
Hunt, Joseph H. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0060 | IM-CA-0002-0062
Johnson, Michael C. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0005
Keisler, Peter D. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Kisor, Colin A. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Lawrence, Victor M. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Lindemann, Michael (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Mizer, Benjamin C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0032 | IM-CA-0002-0037 | IM-CA-0002-0040
Mullane, Hugh (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Murley, Nicole N. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0060 | IM-CA-0002-0062 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Nordin, John E II (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Parascandola, Christina B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0032 | IM-CA-0002-0033 | IM-CA-0002-0037 | IM-CA-0002-0040 | IM-CA-0002-0043 | IM-CA-0002-0046 | IM-CA-0002-0053 | IM-CA-0002-0060 | IM-CA-0002-0062
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0033 | IM-CA-0002-0046 | IM-CA-0002-0053
Robins, Jeffrey S (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Sheffield, Carlton F. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Silvis, William C. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0025 | IM-CA-0002-0032 | IM-CA-0002-0033 | IM-CA-0002-0037 | IM-CA-0002-0040 | IM-CA-0002-0043 | IM-CA-0002-0053 | IM-CA-0002-0060 | IM-CA-0002-0062 | IM-CA-0002-9000
Strathern, Arthur (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0005
Travieso, Frank Michael (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Wu, George H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0003
Other Lawyers Abrams, William F. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009
Alexander, Sarah Pascal (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Arulanantham, Ahilan T (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Bach-y-Rita, Peter (Texas) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Daughtrey, Natasha E (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Dundas, Michael Joseph (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Fretz, Rebekah A (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Ghadiri, Sara T (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Goldberg, Justine Alan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Kaloyanides, David J P (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Kennedy, Maria Savasta (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009
Kupers, Larry (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009
Lally, Amy P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Larson, E. Richard (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009
Lombardo, Joseph P (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Lovell, James H. (Washington) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009
Martinez, Vilma S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009
Millar-Melnick, Laini (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009
Nightingale, Zachary M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Purcell, John S (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Rabinovitz, Judy (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Silvestri, Eric S (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Soler, Mark I. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-0009
Tan, Michael K. T. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000
Veeneman, Catherine A (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0002-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -