This year, DORIS Meissner, Commissioner of the INS, signed the Flores transaction contract. The agreement included several important concessions from the government: on January 17, 1997, the two parties signed the agreement on the settlement of collective actions in Flores v. Reno, The Flores Settlement Agreement (FSA), which binds the defendants – the agencies of the federal government .  Noting that the Refugee Resettlement Office of the Ministry of Health and Human Services violated the Flores agreement by denying unaccompanied immigrant children the right to be heard, dolly Gee, a U.S. district judge, issued an order requesting the applicants to apply Section 24A of the Flores Agreement, which states that a minor must in any event be heard by an immigration judge in deportation proceedings, unless the minor objects to such a hearing on the «notification of custody notice» form. (Flores v. Lynch, 20.1.) The group action ended with a settlement agreement, which established standards for the detention and release of unaccompanied minors, which were placed under the tutelage of the Immigration and Conservation Service (INS) and are now managed by the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services. The 1997 transaction agreement in Flores/. Reno established national standards for the treatment and accommodation of minors detained at the time by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). THE INS`s commitments under the agreement are now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services` Office of Refugee Resettettment (ORR). The agreement establishes minimum standards for first admission and a policy promoting the release of minors.
It also requires that children who remain in federal detention be placed in the least restrictive environment and require the provision of information, treatment and services. The parties agreed that the litigation would end as soon as the government terminated the transaction-compliant regulations. As the government has not yet reached such a settlement, the dispute is not yet closed. Compliance with the transaction was criticized and led to justice, which led to extensions and changes.   In 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice concluded, «While the INS has made considerable progress since the Flores Agreement was signed, our review found deficiencies in the implementation of guidelines and procedures developed in response to Flores.»  The DOJ submitted an application to Flores v to amend the transaction contract.