To Reno v. Flores, the Supreme Court ruled on 23 March 1993 that, while «imprisoned children had a constitutional interest in freedom of institutional detention», the court took the decision of the Flores v. Meese in 1991 because the Immigration and Naturalization Service in question (INS) Regulation 8 CFR 242.24 met due process requirements. InS Regulation 8 CFR 242.24 – «generally authorized the release of an imprisoned foreign adolescent in order of preference to a parent, legal guardian, or certain close adult relatives of the young person, unless the INS found that the detention was necessary to ensure an appearance or to ensure the safety of the young person or others.» [23] [12] This meant that, in limited circumstances, youth «could be referred to another person who had entered into an agreement to care for the youth and ensure the youth`s participation in future immigration proceedings.» Young people who are not released would «generally» require «appropriate accommodation in a facility that had to meet certain standards of care, in accordance with the [1987] authorization.» [12] [Note 5] [Observations 6] The Supreme Court has held that the Immigration and Naturalization Service`s rules on the release of unaccompanied foreign minors are not contrary to the due process clause of the United States Constitution. [1] The court held that «young foreigners detained for alleged removal may only be dismissed at the address of a parent, legal guardian or other related adult.» The legacy for which Reno v. Flores was known was the 1997 settlement agreement, which was subject to subsequent judicial review, which binds the defendants (federal authorities) [2] – Flores v. Reno Settlement Agreement or Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), to which both parties to Reno v. Flores voted in the District Court for the District of Central California (C.D. Cal.).

[3] [Notes 1] The Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), that of C.D. Cal. the establishment of strict national rules and standards for the detention and treatment of minors by federal authorities for more than twenty years. It will remain in force until the federal government introduces definitive provisions for the implementation of the FSA agreement. The FSA regulates the policy of treating unaccompanied foreign children in federal custody of the former INS and its successor – the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the various authorities that operate under the jurisdiction of DHS. The ASL is overseen by a U.S. District Judge in the District Court of Central California. [4] The parties agreed that the litigation would end once the government concludes the rules for compliance with the transaction. Since the government has not yet concluded such rules, the dispute is not yet closed. . .

.