Benitez, et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 2:26-cv-02082 (E.D.N.Y., filed Apr. 8, 2026)
Plaintiff residents of New York filed this class action lawsuit to challenge the Trump administration’s practice of carrying out suspicionless stops and warrantless immigration arrests. The complaint argues that federal immigration agencies including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) disproportionately stop and arrest Black and brown individuals based on their perceived race or ethnicity. Plaintiffs allege that reduced oversight requirements for arrests contributed to broader enforcement and created a dragnet-style arrest operation in New York characterized by the use of unmarked vehicles, masked and heavily armed agents, and sudden arrests.
Plaintiffs’ complaint highlights that these arrests occurred while individuals were commuting to work, outside of homes, stores, and churches, and in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, underscoring the suspicionless nature and racial profiling endemic to these arrests.
Plaintiffs argue that, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357, defendant immigration agencies ignored that warrantless arrests are only permissible if officers have both probable cause of an individual’s unlawful status paired with a likelihood that the same individual will flee before a warrant can be issued. The complaint argues that this is demonstrated by officers’ failure to ask about residence, family ties, employment, immigration status and other important factors to make an individualized determination as to whether a warrantless arrest is necessary. The complaint sought class certification and a declaratory judgment that suspicionless stops violate the Fourth Amendment, race-based stops violate the Fifth Amendment, and warrantless arrests without probable cause violate federal law. Plaintiffs also sought an injunction on these arrest and enforcement actions in New York state and vacatur under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to proceed under pseudonym and enter into a protective order to keep identities confidential from the government as to both named plaintiffs and declarants.
A settlement conference is scheduled for July 21, 2026.
Documents
- Complaint
- Motion for Preliminary Injunction
- Motion to Certify Class
- Memorandum and Order Granting Motion for Protective Order
- Reply ISO Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
Counsel: Make the Road New York | The Legal Aid Society | New York Civil Liberties Union | Covington & Burling LLP
Contact: Amy Belsher | New York Civil Liberties Union | 212-607-3300