Trump Wants to Replace Family Separation With Indefinite Detention. He Likely Can’t.

His executive order seeks a court reversal that’s unlikely to happen.

President Donald Trump meets with Republican members of Congress on Wednesday to discuss immigration.Evan Vucci/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

President Donald Trump is trying to to end the family separation crisis he created by detaining families together—indefinitely. But he likely won’t be able to do that for now, thanks to a 2016 court ruling that requires him to release children quickly. Instead, the outcome of the executive order he signed on Wednesday could end up looking a lot more like a retreat for the president.

Over the past week, Trump repeatedly claimed that only Congress had the power to address the crisis, but amid a growing uproar, he was forced to do so himself. Initial reports suggested that Trump would ignore the court decision and impose indefinite family detention. But Wednesday’s executive order proceeds more cautiously, instructing Attorney General Jeff Sessions to try to get a California federal court to reverse itself and allow families to be held indefinitely.

It’s unclear why the court would do so. If the court sticks with its decision, Trump will have to decide whether to release the children while the parents remain detained—causing another round of separations—or release families together, something he has decried as “catch and release” and promised to end.

Alternatively, he could flout the court and try to force it to issue an injunction to stop the administration’s indefinite detentions. The injunction would allow him once again to portray judges as the roadblocks to realizing his agenda. But the Justice Department says it will not ignore the court decision and the 1997 Flores settlement agreement it is based on.

Trump’s executive order does not end the zero-tolerance initiative under which parents are being criminally charged for crossing the border without authorization. Instead, Trump is directing Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen to keep families together while parents face criminal charges. The zero-tolerance policy was launched by Sessions in April and is responsible for the current separation crisis, which has split more than 2,000 children from their parents in just over a month.

A 2016 decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals requires the Department of Homeland Security to release children in family detention facilities after 20 days. Trump was initially expected to ignore that ruling and call for families to be detained indefinitely. Instead, Trump’s order directs Sessions to ask the federal court for the Central District of California to allow families detained throughout immigration proceedings, which can last more than a year. Dolly Gee, a judge at that court, issued the initial 2015 ruling that the 9th Circuit largely upheld in 2016. Gee found that both parents and children have to be quickly released, but the 9th Circuit limited her decision to apply only to children. There is no reason to think Gee would reverse herself just because the administration is asking her to. 

But even if Wednesday’s order stops the family separations, immigrant advocates strongly oppose Trump’s decision to place families in detention instead. Michelle Brané, the director of the Migrant Rights and Justice program at the Women’s Refugee Commission, told reporters that Trump is replacing the trauma caused by the separations with the trauma caused by family immigration detention. “Do not be fooled,” she said. “This is a trap. The children involved in these situations are still being traumatized.”

The government currently has capacity to detain only about 3,000 people in family detention facilities. Trump’s order calls on the heads of government agencies to provide DHS with additional available facilities to house families.

Karen Tumlin, the director of legal strategy for the National Immigration Law Center, said on the same call with reporters that Trump deserves no credit for the decision. “The president doesn’t get any brownie points for moving from a policy for locking up families separately to locking them up together,” she said.

Madison Pauly contributed reporting for this article.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate