TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-18-00261-CV Texas Department of Family and Protective Services; Henry Whitman, in His Official Capacity as DFPS Commissioner; Texas Health and Human Services Commission; Charles Smith, in his Official Capacity as HHSC Executive Commissioner; Corrections Corporation of America; and The GEO Group, Inc., Appellants v. Grassroots Leadership, Inc.; Gloria Valenzuela; E. G. S., for herself and as next friend for A. E. S. G.; F. D. G., for herself and as next friend for N. R. C. D.; Y. E. M. A., for herself and as next friend for A. S. A.; Y. R. F., for herself and as next friend for C. R. R.; S. J. M. G., for herself and as next friend for J. C. M.; K. G. R. M., for herself and as next friend for A. V. R.; C. R. P., for herself and as next friend for A. N. C. P.; B. E. F. R., for herself and as next friend for N. S. V.; S. E. G. E., for herself and as next friend for G. E. A.; Leser Julieta Lopez Herrera, for herself and as next friend for A. B.; and Rose Guzman de Marquez, for herself and as next friend for D. R., Appellees FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. D-1-GN-15-004336, HONORABLE KARIN CRUMP, JUDGE PRESIDING MEMORANDUM OPINION This appeal concerns several parties’ challenges to the validity of a rule promulgated by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS). The challenged rule requires “family residential centers” (FRCs)—which serve as detention centers for immigrants and their minor children who are subject to federal civil-immigration proceedings—to be licensed as “general residential operations” (GROs) and, thus, subject to the State’s minimum standards for such facilities.1 As they did below in a plea to the jurisdiction, appellants DFPS and its Commissioner and the Texas Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) and its Executive Commissioner contend that the trial court should not have reached the merits of the rule challenge because each plaintiff below lacked standing to confer jurisdiction on the trial court. We agree with appellants and, for the following reasons, reverse the trial court’s judgment and render judgment granting appellants’ plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing appellees’ rule-challenge claims with prejudice. BACKGROUND2 In 1985 a class of plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other defendants in the District Court of Central California; many years later, the parties entered into a court-approved settlement of the lawsuit (the “Flores Settlement Agreement”). See Flores v. Lynch, 828 F.3d 898, 901–03 (9th Cir. 2016). The Flores Settlement Agreement “set[] out nationwide policy for the detention, release, and treatment of minors in the custody of [ICE].” Id. at 901. Under the Flores Settlement Agreement, unless detention is necessary 1 The Providers sued the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS) and its Commissioner, Henry Whitman, because DFPS was at the time the agency that handled licensing of ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals