Escobar Molina v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-03417 (D.D.C., filed Sept. 25, 2025)

This litigation challenges the mass immigration arrests in Washington, D.C. conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforce (ICE), U.S. Border Patrol, and other federal agents without warrants or probable cause, of individuals targeted on the basis of their perceived Latino ethnicity. Plaintiffs’ challenge these arrests as a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357. This lawsuit challenges the government’s mass arrest policy as unlawful and arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the policy is unlawful and invalid, an end to warrantless arrests without probable cause, and the expungement of records of unlawful arrests.

Plaintiffs submitted their preliminary injunction motion on October 3, highlighting that 8 U.S.C. § 1357 allows warrantless immigration arrests only if there is probable cause that a person is both unlawfully present and likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained. They argued that the government ignored both of these requirements by using a standard of reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause and made arrests without individualized assessments. Plaintiffs challenge the government’s policy of arresting first and asking questions later, emphasizing the fact that officers arrested individuals without asking about their immigration status or community ties and noting that arrested persons included individuals with legal status or pending asylum claims. Plaintiffs argued that this arrest policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Accardi doctrine.

In its December 2, 2025 memo and opinion granting plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, the court emphasized that immigration violations are civil, not criminal offenses. The court ordered the government to stop its practice of conducting warrantless immigration arrests in Washington, D.C. without an individualized finding as to probable cause of removability and flight risk, highlighting that reasonable suspicion and probable cause are different standards. The court found sufficient evidence that the government’s systematic violation of statutory requirements warranted a preliminary injunction grant. The court provisionally certified an “unassessed escape risk” class consisting of individuals arrested since August 11, 2025 without a warrant and without an individualized pre-arrest determination on likelihood of fleeing.

Defendants appealed this order to the D.C. circuit court on February 2, 2026.

On May 7, 2026, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, emphasizing that the government cannot rely on the January 28, 2026 Lyons memo to conduct warrantless arrests in Washington, D.C. and allowing plaintiffs to seek evidence from the government on officer training, internal communications, and arrest practices.

Documents

• Complaint
• Motion to Certify Class
• Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification
• Defendants’ Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Provisional Class Certification
• Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Motions
• Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• Memorandum Opinion on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
• Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce Preliminary Injunction
• Defendants’ Opposition to Motion to Enforce
• Plaintiffs’ Reply ISO Motion to Enforce
• Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion to Enforce

Counsel: Amica Center for Immigrant Rights | ACLU D.C. | ACLU | National Immigration Project | CASA | Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs | Covington & Burling

Contact: Adina Appelbaum | Amica Center for Immigrant Rights | (202) 331-3320 | adina@amicacenter.org