Facing a courtordered deadline of Thursday, federal agencies must reunite more than 1,500 parents with their children within about 48 hours.

said Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.

TIME ON ASYLUM

Meanwhile, the Justice Department said Tuesday that the Trump administration and the ACLU failed to agree on how much time parents should have to decide whether to seek asylum after they are reunited with their children.

The administration proposed a four-day waiting period, three days shorter than the ACLU proposed, according to government filing in federal court.

The longer waiting period would increase costs and occupy limited beds, David Jennings, an official at U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said in a declaration filed with the court. It costs $319 a day to detain a family member, and there are about 2,500 to 2,700 beds nationwide to house families.

Sabraw imposed a temporary halt last week on deporting reunified families after the ACLU requested the one-week waiting period, citing “persistent and increasing rumors … that mass deportations may be carried out imminently and immediately upon reunification.” The ACLU argued that parents needed the time to discuss whether to seek asylum with their children, lawyers and advocates.

In an attempt to staunch the flow of migrants, the Trump administration in May launched a policy under which every adult caught entering the country illegally was potentially subject to criminal prosecution. As part of the crackdown, some 3,000 children were removed from their parents.

After an international outcry, Trump signed an executive order June 20 halting the separations. Sabraw then issued an order that reunification of all families take place within 30 days.

Authorities identified 2,551 parents eligible to be reunified with their children. A number of others were deemed ineligible for a variety of reasons, including the fact that they had criminal histories.

Authorities have been transporting parents and children to staging areas in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. After reunification, the families are assisted by a variety of nonprofit organizations to reach various destinations

around the country to await further hearings in immigration court. Hundreds of volunteers are involved in the effort, which includes offering temporary accommodation, airfare and other assistance.

After Sabraw suspended the deportation of reunited families, immigration lawyers reported that many of their clients have been funneled to family detention facilities, rather than released, an indication that they could be in the pipeline for deportation once the judge’s stay is lifted.

A spokesman for the Justice Department said the government does not comment on ongoing litigation.

On Friday, the judge had asked the government to provide information about the total number of parents deported and under what circumstances.

There have been 1,187 children reunified with their parents or “other appropriate discharges,” which include guardians and sponsors, according to a government filing.

Sabraw on Tuesday commended the government for reunifying large numbers of families ahead the Thursday deadline, calling it a “remarkable achievement.”

SPECIAL MONITOR IDEA

As the U.S. races to reunite families, a judge in Los Angeles is weighing whether to appoint a monitor to oversee detained children’s treatment while in custody.

Human-rights lawyers have asked U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles to appoint a special monitor, arguing that the U.S. has conducted a “full-scale assault” on the landmark agreement known as the Flores settlement, first reached in 1997, which restricts the government’s ability to detain migrant minors and mandates standards of care.

In the case before Gee, the human-rights lawyers presented firsthand accounts from about 225 children and parents who described being abused, hungry and frightened as they were held at border facilities. Some children described inadequate and inedible food, including expired baby formula and juice, as well as sandwiches that were either spoiled or frozen.

Teenagers spoke of being unable to bathe or brush their teeth and being forced to sleep in crowded cells on cement floors or benches. One mother said she and her 3-year-old shared two mattresses in a room 10 feet by 10 feet with six other people.

The Flores settlement and the recent family separation crisis overlap, according to the human-rights lawyers, because the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy

has resulted in thousands of children placed in precarious situations.

The case is named for a 15-year-old Salvadoran who sued over the conditions of her detention.

After the Flores suit and others went through the courts, a 1997 agreement was reached by President Bill Clinton’s administration to require children be released either to their parents, a legal guardian, another relative or an individual vetted by federal authorities. It also specified that if immediate placement to parents or other adult relatives wasn’t possible, the government should place the children in the “least restrictive” setting and ensure standards of care and treatment.

A later decision in the case interpreted speedy release to mean an average of 20 days from arrival in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody.

The Trump administration claimed that it had no choice because of the Flores case but to separate parents and minors. This month, Gee rejected the administration’s request to modify the agreement to allow families to be detained in long-term facilities, calling it a “cynical attempt to undo a longstanding court settlement.”

Information for this article was contributed by Miriam Jordan of

The New York Times; by Patricia Hurtado, Anna Edgerton and Laura Litvan of Bloomberg News; and by Elliot Spagat of The Associated Press.