The Trump administration is intensifying efforts to abolish the Flores Settlement Agreement, a long-standing policy that officials claim serves as a significant draw for illegal immigration and poses a considerable challenge to enforcing border security.

In a legal submission on Thursday, the Department of Justice, in conjunction with the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services, requested that a federal judge in Los Angeles annul the consent decree that has governed the detention and release of migrant children since 1997, as reported by The Washington Examiner.

The filing states that the Flores agreement is antiquated, impractical, and has effectively stalled U.S. immigration policy, leaving the government with two unfavorable choices: either release all migrant families or separate parents from their children. The administration contends that operating under this framework renders it nearly impossible to secure the border or discourage illegal crossings.

The legal challenge indicates a definitive attempt to alter the manner in which the U.S. addresses family units at the border—an issue that continues to be a focal point in the national immigration discourse.

“For many years, the Flores consent decree has served as an instrument for the Left to advocate for an open borders policy,” a DHS official stated to The Examiner. “It is high time for a single district in California to cease overseeing the Executive Branch’s immigration responsibilities. The Trump administration is dedicated to reinstating rationality in our immigration framework.

Following the filing, The Associated Press along with other media outlets reported that it was a strategy to “terminate protections for immigrant children in federal custody.”

However, The Examiner contended that the termination of the Flores Agreement would actually lead to a reduction in family separations.

The initiative to abolish the Flores Settlement Agreement is set to be addressed in court on July 18, where U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee, who has long been in charge of the case, will evaluate the motion. Judge Gee has previously prevented the Trump administration from holding migrant families for more than 20 days and from circumventing the regulations that prohibit the separation of children from their parents while in custody.

This represents President Trump’s most significant effort to dismantle Flores, a settlement he also attempted to annul towards the conclusion of his first term, only to face judicial opposition in 2019. However, this time, with new regulations established and a judiciary influenced by Trump’s first-term appointments, administration officials are optimistic that the circumstances are finally favorable for them.

In a 67-page legal document, the administration contends that significant changes in law and policy, such as the Homeland Security Act and the implementation of federal care standards for migrant children, have rendered the Flores agreement both obsolete and unconstitutional.

The Justice Department asserts that the courts have significantly deviated from the original intent of the settlement. They contend that what was intended to apply solely to unaccompanied minors has been inappropriately broadened to include family units—a category of migrants that has seen a sharp decline since Trump resumed office.

“This category has encompassed millions of individuals over the years. The FSA—initially crafted to tackle a very specific set of limited circumstances—has been construed to pertain to the custody of all minors at every stage,” the government stated in its submission.

Officials from the Justice Department indicate that the legal landscape has transformed considerably in recent years. They reference the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Garland v. Aleman Gonzalez as a pivotal moment, claiming that it weakens the court’s power to enforce Flores as it presently exists. This ruling has emerged as a key element in the administration’s legal efforts to dismantle the long-standing agreement.

“After 40 years of litigation and 28 years of judicial oversight over a crucial aspect of U.S. immigration policy … it is time for this case to conclude,” the government remarked.