Author Archives: American Immigration Council

Benitez v. DHS

Posted on by

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

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

Aguilar Peralta v. DHS

Posted on by

Moises Javier Aguilar Peralta, et al. v. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 2:26-cv-337 (S.D. Ohio, filed Mar. 18, 2026)

In response to the roving patrols of masked and armed plainclothes federal agents in Ohio, plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs challenge these agencies’ practice of conducting warrantless arrests of individuals in Ohio without making a determination as to probable cause of the individual’s likelihood to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Plaintiffs challenge this practice as a contravention of the requirements in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2), the Accardi doctrine, and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on April 15, 2026, requesting the court to order these federal immigration agencies to cease their current arrest practices in Ohio and comply with the requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) before conducting warrantless arrests. The preliminary injunction motion argues that plaintiffs face irreparable harm given the ongoing risk of arrest, fear of future encounters with federal immigration agents, and the disruption of family life and work life due to plaintiffs’ inability to attend school, church, or other routine activities out of fear of detention by federal immigration agents.

Hearings on the preliminary injunction motion took place from June 3 through June 5, 2026. As of June 2026, the parties await a decision.

Documents

Counsel: ACLU of Ohio | Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. | Community Refugee & Immigration Services | The Gittes Law Group | Marshall, Forman and Schlein, LLC 

Contact: Freda J. Levenson | ACLU of Ohio  | flevenson@acluohio.org  

Press:

Escobar Molina v. DHS

Posted on by

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

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

Reach Community Development v. DHS

Posted on by

Reach Community Development v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:25-CV-2257 (D. Or., filed Dec. 5, 2025) and No. 26-1575 (9th Cir., docketed Mar. 16, 2026)

Plaintiff residents of Gary’s Landing, an apartment building located across the street from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility, filed suit against Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Federal Protective Services, and the U.S. Secret Service following six months of exposure to tear gas and other chemical agents deployed by the various federal agencies against protesters outside the ICE facility. The chemical agents entered Plaintiffs’ homes through windows and vents and seeped into walls, carpets, and furniture, resulting in physical suffering including unstoppable coughing, severe burning in eyes and throats, dizziness, and difficulty breathing as well as psychological harm for the veterans and survivors of domestic violence with post-traumatic stress disorder who live in Gary’s Landing and must tolerate the government’s use of flashbang explosives.

Plaintiffs’ complaint sought relief for violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the Fourth Amendment in the form of declaratory judgment and a preliminary and permanent injunction against Defendants’ use of chemical munitions likely to infiltrate Gary’s Landing apartments.

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction argued that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that Defendants’ repeated use of chemical munitions substantially burdens and infringes upon Plaintiffs’ rights to bodily integrity, freedom from arbitrary bodily restraint and intrusions on personal security, and the use and enjoyment of their property. These intrusions, Plaintiffs argued, harmed Plaintiffs’ liberty and property interests in such a way that shocks the conscience. Plaintiffs argued, in the alternative, that Defendants’ conduct and use of force violates the Fourth Amendment as an unconstitutional seizure and restraint of Plaintiffs’ liberty of movement. Plaintiffs’ harm is irreparable given the deprivation of constitutional rights, Plaintiffs’ physical and psychological harm from having their apartments invaded by poisonous gases, and the economic costs already expended to mitigate this damage.

On March 6, 2026, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their Fifth Amendment claim. The court highlighted the fact that Defendants continued to use chemical munitions despite multiple notices and warnings that residents at Gary’s Landing were being harmed and found that Defendant’s acts demonstrated a pattern of deliberate indifference. The court concluded that Plaintiffs showed ongoing and future harm given the repeated exposure to poisonous gases despite Plaintiffs’ efforts to protect themselves by sealing doors and windows, using air purifiers, wearing gas masks in their homes and even to sleep, and taking frequent showers. The court found that the resulting adverse effects on Plaintiffs’ respiratory systems, heart health, and other medical conditions as well as the psychological distress suffered met the standard for irreparable harm. The court held that Defendants’ interests in protecting federal property and employees and maintaining public order do not outweigh the constitutional rights of the residents of Gary’s Landing. The court ordered Defendants to cease the use of chemical munitions and gases in quantities likely to reach Gary’s Landing unless necessary to address an imminent threat to life.

On March 25, 2026, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the government’s emergency motion for a stay pending appeal and ordered expedited briefing. The court heard oral arguments on April 7, 2026.

On April 27, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued an order reasoning that the federal government is likely to win on appeal and rejected the district court’s holding that residents of Gary’s Landing have a Fifth Amendment right to be free from exposure to tear-gas chemicals used by law enforcement, citing to Dobbs to argue that rights must be deeply rooted in history and tradition to be cognizable under a substantive due process analysis. The Ninth Circuit also rejected the district court’s finding that Plaintiffs have a substantive due process right to bodily integrity.

Documents:


Counsel: Bradley Berstein Sands LLP | Jacobson Lawyers Group | Democracy Forward Foundation | Protect Democracy

Contact: Darin M. Sands (dsands@bradleybernstein.com) | Daniel F. Jacobson (dan@jacobsonlawyersgroup.com) | Anna L. Deffebach (adeffebach@democracyforward.org)

Fridley Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Mullin

Posted on by

Fridley Pub. Sch. Dist., Indep. Sch. Dist. 14 v. Mullin, No. 26-CV-1023 (D. Minn., filed Feb. 4, 2026)

Plaintiffs Fridley Public School, Duluth Public Schools, and Education Minnesota sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along with several federal officials challenging Defendants’ January 2025 rescission of the “sensitive locations” memorandum that restricted immigration enforcement at or near schools. Plaintiffs’ complaint set out several instances of enforcement actions at or near schools in Minnesota. Plaintiffs noted that children, parents, and teachers fear going to school regardless of their immigration status following this rescission and that Minnesota schools have reported large reductions in attendance since the beginning of “Operation Metro Surge.”

In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the January 2025 rescission is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for failing to explain the departure from prior policy and for failing to consider reliance interests or alternatives. The complaint that Defendants violated the APA by failing to use a notice-and-comment process to rescind the longstanding sensitive locations policy. Finally, Plaintiffs asserted that the January 2025 policy is final agency action that has already injured Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the 2025 policy is unlawful and vacatur of that policy. Plaintiffs also sought a preliminary stay of the changed policy.

In their brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ stay motion and motion for a preliminary injunction, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs had not shown a legally sufficient injury as a result of the January 2025 guidance, and that Plaintiffs cannot challenge this internal enforcement guidance under the APA. Defendants also argued that the enforcement policy does not directly regulate the school districts and that the previous policy regarding sensitive locations did not confer legally enforceable rights. Further, Defendants argued that the January 2025 guidance is within DHS’ discretion.

The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay and preliminary injunction on May 6, 2026. In its decision, the court held that none of the plaintiffs established a traceable, cognizable harm and that the court could not redress the harms alleged. The court also found that Plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and that Plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm. The court further expressed in its denial that the prior guidance did not categorically preclude enforcement at or near locations such as schools but, rather, just discouraged such enforcement.

The court subsequently set a schedule for dispositive motions. As of June 2026, those motions have yet to be filed by either party.

Documents:

Counsel: Democracy Forward Foundation | Zimmerman Reed LLP | The Law Office of Kevin C. Riach | Nilan Johnson Lewis PA

Contact: Elena Goldstein (egoldstein@democracyforward.org) | Sean Ouellette (souellette@democracyforward.org)

FTCA Wrongful Death Administrative Complaint for 8-Year-Old Anadith Danay Reyes Alvarez

Posted on by

Eight-year-old Anadith was born with sickle cell disease (SCD) and a heart condition. At five years old, she had open heart surgery to repair a heart defect. On May 9, 2023, Anadith’s parents crossed the U.S.-Mexico border with Anadith and her two older siblings—fleeing discrimination and persecution in Honduras as Afro-Indigenous people. Shortly after crossing, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) arrested the family. Anadith’s mother Mabel told a CBP officer about Anadith’s medical condition and provided medical records of her heart defect. Mabel repeated this information upon medical intake. While in CBP custody, Anadith contracted the flu, but CBP did not seek emergency treatment from a doctor, despite her condition. By May 16, 2023, Anadith’s fever reached nearly 105 degrees, but CBP refused Mabel’s request to call an ambulance. On May 17, Anadith and Mabel visited the CBP medical station at least four times—but each time the providers refused to call an ambulance. After the fourth visit, Mabel carried Anadith—who could not walk—and felt the girl die in her arms. Only then did CBP call an ambulance—and refused to allow Mabel to ride with her daughter, instead forcing her to ride in a separate car with CBP. Anadith was pronounced dead at the hospital. In May 2024, the Texas Civil Rights Project and Haitian Bridge Alliance filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to obtain the medical records and other documents related to Anadith while in CBP custody.

On May 1, 2025, Anadith’s parents—Mabel and Rossel—submitted an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging that CBP was negligent and recklessly or intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Anadith and her family. They seek compensation.

Documents:

Counsel: Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ Haitian Bridge Alliance

Contact: Kassandra Gonzalez ǀ Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ kassandra@texascivilrightsproject.org

Press:

RAICES v. Noem

Posted on by

Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services, et al. v. Kristi Noem, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00306 (D.D.C., filed Feb. 3, 2025) and No. 25-5243 (D.C. Cir., filed Jul. 3, 2025)

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation invoking Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) Section 212(f), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), and his purportedly inherent constitutional authority, to summarily expel noncitizens who entered without a visa after the date of the Proclamation and prohibit them from applying for asylum and obtaining other procedural and substantive protections under the INA.

Plaintiffs Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES), Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center, and the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project filed suit on February 3 to block the Proclamation. On February 19, 2025, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add individuals impacted by the Proclamation, moved for class certification, and sought a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs assert that the Proclamation violates the INA’s asylum and withholding of removal provisions, the statutes implementing the Convention Against Torture, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA). Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment.

On July 2, 2025, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment and class certification, denied plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction as moot, and deferred ruling on the remaining portions of the cross-motions. The court certified a class consisting of “all individuals who are or will be subject to Proclamation 10888 and/or its implementation within the United States.” Defendants appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court and sought emergency stay, which the court of appeals granted as to the district court’s order prohibiting the application of the 212(f) Proclamation to asylum applications, but denied as to the district court’s order prohibiting application of the Proclamation to withholding of removal and protection under the Convention Against Torture. The district court has ordered that further briefing will be held in abeyance pending a decision on the appeal. On November 3, 2025, oral argument was heard at the D.C. Circuit.

On April 24, 2026, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment and class certification. The court of appeals held that Section 212(f) does not authorize the government to circumvent the INA’s removal pathways or to bar people from seeking asylum and withholding of removal.  

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Immigrant Rights Project ǀ National Immigrant Justice Center ǀ Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies ǀ ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia ǀ Jenner & Block LLP ǀ Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ ACLU Foundation of Texas ǀ Gibbs Houston Pauw

Contact: Lee Gelernt ǀ ACLU Immigrant Rights Project ǀ lgelernt@aclu.org ǀ Keren Zwick ǀ National Immigrant Justice Center ǀ kzwick@immigrantjustice.org ǀ Melissa Crow ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies ǀ crowmelissa@uclawsf.edu

United Farm Workers v. Noem

Posted on by

United Farm Workers, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., No. 1:25-cv-00246 (E.D. Cal., filed Feb. 26, 2025)

In January 2025, Border Patrol agents travelled more than 300 miles inland to Bakersfield, California and initiated “Operation Return to Sender,” a weeklong sweep of Kern County targeting primarily Latino neighborhoods. During the operation, Border Patrol stopped, detained, and arrested people of color or those who appeared to be farmworkers or day laborers, without reasonable suspicion that they were removable. Border Patrol violated federal law by conducting warrantless arrests without making individualized assessments of flight risk. Border Patrol transported people to El Centro Border Patrol station, detained them incommunicado, and coerced people into accepting voluntary departure.

On February 26, 2025, United Farm Workers and five individuals—including a U.S. citizen and a lawful permanent resident—sued on behalf of three proposed classes of people targeted by Border Patrol. Plaintiffs argued that Border Patrol’s enforcement actions violated the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357, and immigration regulations because they arrested people without a warrant without probable cause of flight risk. Plaintiffs also brought claims under the Fourth Amendment, for suspicionless stops, and the Fifth Amendment, for coerced voluntary departure. Plaintiffs subsequently sought a preliminary injunction on behalf of two classes – Suspicionless Stop Class and Warrantless Arrest Class.

On April 29, 2025, the district court provisionally certified the Suspicionless Stop Class and the Warrantless Arrest Class. The court then granted Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Border Patrol from: (a) making stops without reasonable suspicion the person is present in the United States in violation of U.S. immigration law and (b) making warrantless arrests without probable cause of flight risk. The court further ordered Border Patrol to (a) document arrests and provide that documentation to class counsel, (b) broadcast a policy regarding stops and arrests, and (c) train Border Patrol agents in the requirements of the policy and the preliminary injunction. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit and filed a motion to dismiss with the district court.

On October 6, 2025, the district court addressed the government’s motion to dismiss and discussion of the U.S. Supreme Court’s September 8, 2025 order in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, in which it raises serious questions as to Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue their claims for prospective injunctive relief. The court found its evaluation of the motion to dismiss—and by extension the motion to enforce—requires further briefing on this subject.  On January 25, 2026, the court denied the defendants’ motion to stay all proceedings. The court also concluded that it has no jurisdiction to consider some of the arguments raised in the pending motion to dismiss including arguments on standing, mootness, and arguments related to the issuance of musters pertaining to stops and arrests. However, the court found that it could proceed on the remaining arguments including the Fourth Amendment claims in a separate hearing on the remaining issues. A hearing on the motions to enforce and dismiss was held on February 5, 2026, where the court heard both sides. On April 1, 2026, the District Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the preliminary injunction order.

In oral argument before the Ninth Circuit on April 22, 2026, Plaintiffs asked the Court of Appeals to uphold the April 2025 preliminary injunction. They argued that people in the Eastern District of California face an ongoing credible threat that Border Patrol will violate their rights again. The parties are awaiting a decision as of June 2026.

 

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Foundation of Northern California ǀ ACLU Foundation of Southern California ǀ ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties ǀ Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP

Contact: Bree Bernwanger ǀ ACLU Northern California ǀ bbernwanger@aclunc.org

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies v. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 3:24-cv-01601 (N.D. Cal., filed Mar. 14, 2024)

Since at least late 2022, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has forced thousands of migrants to await processing for asylum or other relief in dangerous and squalid open-air detention sites along the California-Mexico border without reliable access to food, water, shelter, warmth, sanitation, or medical care.Initially located near San Ysidro, CBP has expanded its use of outdoor detention to locations near Jacumba and reports indicate CBP has added new locations in the Otay Mountain Wilderness.

Al Otro Lado submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – one in October 2023 and a second, joined by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS), in December 2023, seeking records regarding CBP’s activities at these detention sites – what CBP calls “gathering sites.” The FOIAs seek to uncover CBP’s policies and practices surrounding the detention sites, including their supervision and monitoring of the sites. When CBP failed to respond to either request, CGRS and Al Otro Lado filed suit under FOIA to compel the production of responsive records.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado & Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

Contact: Edith Sangueza | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies | sanguezaedith@uclawsf.edu

Osorio v. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Osorio v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-03779 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 20, 2023)

Plaintiff Lianet Alvarez Osorio learned that her mother, Idania, had died while in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody from a CBP press release issued two weeks after her mother’s passing. Ms. Osorio knew that her mother would be arriving at the border at Eagle Pass, Texas, and processed by CBP on January 2, 2023. The next day, she learned from another woman that her mother had been suffering from chest pains while in CBP custody. For the next two weeks Ms. Osorio frantically sought information about her mother’s whereabouts, only to have a family member call her with news of a press release announcing the death of a woman who matched her mother’s description. Contrary to CBP policy, nobody from CBP personally notified Ms. Osorio. Nor has CBP provided Ms. Osorio with more information about the circumstances of her mother’s death beyond what was included in the press release.

On March 8, 2023, Ms. Osorio filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking records regarding her mother’s death, including any CBP investigation, and information regarding the circumstances of the press release. When CBP failed to timely respond, Ms. Osorio filed suit on December 20, 2023, and subsequently amended her complaint on February 6, 2024.  In her amended complaint, Ms. Osorio alleges that a recent whistleblower complaint to Congress alleging serious mismanagement, understaffing, and incompetence by Loyal Source Government Services – the medical contractor to CBP border facilities – raised more questions about her mother’s death and heightened the need for transparency.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado

Contact: Andrew Fels | Al Otro Lado | andrew@alotrolado.org