LOS ANGELES – A federal judge in Los Angeles has delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle a long-standing policy designed to protect immigrant children in federal custody. On August 16, 2025, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee denied the administration’s request to terminate the nearly three-decade-old agreement, a ruling that follows a pivotal hearing involving the federal government and legal advocates for the children.
This decision ensures the continued enforcement of a critical framework governing the care and custody of vulnerable minors, a topic that remains a central and often trending issue in the US.
A Decades-Old Safeguard
The policy in question, a standing agreement forged decades ago, mandates specific, comprehensive standards for licensed shelters housing immigrant children. These provisions are designed to ensure the safety and well-being of minors navigating the complex Border system. Among its crucial requirements are guaranteed access to nutritious food, clean water, adequate adult supervision, prompt emergency medical services, and proper environmental controls within these facilities. The agreement serves as a fundamental safeguard, aiming to prevent the neglect and mistreatment of children who often arrive in the country after harrowing journeys.
Beyond establishing living standards, the policy also imposes strict limits on the initial holding periods for immigrant children. It explicitly restricts U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from detaining minors for more than 72 hours before they must be transferred to the care of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This time constraint is a cornerstone of the policy, intended to move children quickly from often spartan border patrol facilities into more child-appropriate settings under HHS oversight.
Advocates Present Disturbing Evidence
The Trump administration’s recent request sought a complete termination of this long-standing agreement, a move that drew strong opposition from legal advocates representing the children. These advocates argued vociferously against ending the policy, presenting compelling evidence that underscored its continued necessity. Their testimony and documentation revealed alarming instances where children were reportedly held by CBP far beyond the stipulated 72-hour limit, with some particularly egregious cases showing minors detained for over two weeks. Such prolonged detentions in facilities not designed for extended child care highlight the critical need for continued judicial oversight and the robust protections afforded by the policy.
This evidence played a pivotal role in Judge Gee’s decision, reinforcing the argument that without the standing agreement, children could be subjected to conditions and durations of detention that are not in their best interest or compliant with established standards of care. The News of these prolonged detentions underscored the real-world implications of relaxing the policy’s mandates.
Previous Attempts and Future Plans
This is not the first attempt to modify the agreement. The Biden administration, for instance, had successfully sought a partial end to the policy last year. That adjustment allowed for court supervision to cease upon a child’s transfer into HHS custody for most cases, signifying an evolution in how the agreement is applied but retaining its core protections during the initial, critical phase of federal custody. However, the Trump administration’s latest petition sought a complete termination, a much more drastic measure that would have entirely removed the established safeguards.
In a related development, the federal government is reportedly planning a significant expansion of immigration detention facilities across the nation. This move signals an anticipated increase in detentions, further emphasizing the importance of policies that provide clear standards for the care of individuals, especially children, held within the immigration system. The ongoing debate around the treatment of immigrant children remains a highly sensitive and impactful aspect of US immigration policy, consistently drawing public and legal scrutiny. Judge Gee’s ruling ensures that, for now, the established protections for these vulnerable minors will remain firmly in place.
