Author Archives: NWIRP

American Oversight v. CBP

Posted on by

American Oversight v. CBP, No. 1:26-cv-00750 (D.D.C., filed Mar. 4, 2026)

In the wake of high-profile media coverage of excessive use of force by immigration officers, American Oversight filed suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking records related to the agency’s immigration enforcement operations, its legal justification for stops and searches, and its trainings on use of force and the Fourth Amendment.

CBP has faced increased scrutiny since January 2026, when two of its agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old American intensive care nurse for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in Minneapolis. The lawsuit comes amid mounting concerns about escalating federal immigration enforcement tactics. American Oversight sued the agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requesting communications sent by former Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino during a specified time period, and all communications between Mr. Bovino and the White House during that period. CBP failed to respond to American Oversight’s original FOIA request, and American Oversight subsequently brought this suit to compel the agency to produce the requested records in the interest of public transparency.

Documents

Counsel: American Oversight

Contact: American Oversight ǀ partnerships@americanoversight.org

Friends of Ruidosa Church v. Mullin

Posted on by

Friends of the Ruidosa Church, et al. v. Mullin et al, No. 3:26-cv-01099 (W.D. Tex., filed Apr. 16, 2026)

On April 16, 2026, a collective of organizations and individuals including nonprofit Friends of Ruidosa Church, a Big Bend river guide, and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to stop border wall construction in the Big Bend region of Texas. The lawsuit was filed in the wake of several others opposing border wall plans in the region, including a related case, Center for Biological Diversity v. CBP.

The plaintiffs allege the Trump administration unconstitutionally waived dozens of environmental laws to fast-track border wall construction through the Big Bend region and exceeded its power granted by Congress. The complaint also alleges that because Congress did not clearly authorize DHS or CBP to create a complete, cross-continental border-length wall, the DHS secretary’s efforts to do so through serial waivers, and particularly the Big Bend Waiver, violates the major questions doctrine and thus the Constitution’s separation of powers principles.

The Big Bend Waiver authorizes large-scale border wall construction along the north bank of the Rio Grande, and will physically block plaintiffs from being able to reach the river at traditional access points. The complaint asserts that plaintiffs, as members of the public and regular users of the river, are beneficiaries of the public trust and have legitimate expectations of continued, reasonable access to the river.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 13, 2026 and a motion for summary judgment on July 17. Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiffs’ motion on August 7. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on August 17, which was granted on October 2.

Documents

Counsel: Texas Civil Rights Project | Center for Biological Diversity

Contact: Laiken Jordahl | Center for Biological Diversity | ljordahl@biologicaldiversity.org

Press

Conserve Big Bend v. DHS

Posted on by

Conserve Big Bend, et al. v. DHS et al., No. 1:26-cv-03198 (D.D.C., filed Sept. 14, 2026)

Six Texas landowners and the nonprofit Conserve Big Bend filed suit in federal district court on September 14, 2026, against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) over the government’s border wall plans for the Big Bend, Texas area.

The coalition of plaintiffs is challenging the Trump administration’s plan to seize private property for U.S.-Mexico border wall construction in several counties in the Big Bend region.

The lawsuit alleges that the DHS Secretary issued federal waivers for the project earlier this year, even though the Big Bend region doesn’t meet the requirements for such waivers in the first place. These waivers determined the Big Bend Sector to be an area of “high illegal entry” for undocumented immigrants. The Big Bend Sector, a 517-mile stretch of the border, saw fewer than 1.5% of the total apprehensions on the entire southwest border over the past five years, according to CBP data.

The determination allowed the agency to unlock expedited construction and bypass dozens of federal environmental, public health, cultural, and historic preservation laws under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop border wall construction in the entire region, including on steel vehicle barriers and roads inside the Big Bend National Park. The suit also alleges the agency is violating the landowners’ fifth amendment rights to due process.

The landowners’ lawsuit is the latest in a slew of legal battles the federal government is facing over its “Smart Wall,” plans in the Big Bend region which involve the installation of 30-foot-high steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers, patrol roads, lighting, cameras and technology across private, state, and federal lands along the Rio Grande river.

Documents

Counsel: K&L Gates LLP

Press:

Asylum-Seeking Family Held in Cell at US-Canada Border for Weeks

Posted on by

FTCA Administrative Complaint Filed Against CBP for Holding Family at Blaine Port of Entry

On July 28, 2026, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Washington and Leovy + Leovy filed an administrative complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on behalf of a family of asylum seekers, including a five-month pregnant mother, who were held for nearly four weeks in a small cell at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) facility in Blaine, Washington, near the Canadian border.

Plaintiffs Josefina, Jose, and their four minor children came to the U.S. in 2024 seeking asylum from their home country, where they feared for their lives due to Jose’s membership in an opposition political party. In April 2025, an immigration judge denied their request for additional time to submit proof of their asylum claim, deemed their claim abandoned, and ordered the family deported. In fear that they would be sent back to their country of origin, the family fled to the U.S.-Canada border near Blaine, Washington, intending to seek asylum in Canada. At the time, the children were ages 13, 10, 5, and 11 months, and Josefina was five months pregnant with their fifth child.

Immigration enforcement officers stopped the family before they reached the border and detained them a facility in Blaine for nearly four weeks. The facility was not intended for long-term detention, and the family of six was confined to a small, dirty, windowless, hot cell, and rarely let out. They did not have the ability to shower or change clothes for two weeks. The six family members shared one toilet in the small cell, and used one of the cell’s mattresses as a privacy screen around the toilet. A small sink attached to the back of the toilet was their only source of running water. The mattresses were so thin that when Josefina attempted to sleep, her ribs dug into the ground, causing pain and discomfort.

Josefina’s pregnancy was already deemed high risk due to her diabetes, and the heat in the cell was unbearable for her. CBP neglected to provide her with food that would stabilize her insulin levels. Josefina’s condition caused her to lose consciousness twice, each time resulting in CBP transporting her to a nearby hospital, but returning her to the cramped cell afterward despite doctors’ warnings about her condition.

The administrative complaint alleges that the detention conditions of the family were inhumane, that CBP was on notice that these conditions would be especially harmful to a pregnant person and to children, and that nearly one month of these conditions caused severe emotional, mental, and physical pain for the family. The complaint concludes CBP and DHS are liable for torts of negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress, medical negligence, and failure to meet the minimum standard of care in a carceral setting, as well as liable for battery for handcuffing a 13-year-old child. The family seeks damages.

Counsel: American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation | LEOVY + LEOVY

Contacts: David Montes | American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation | dmontes@aclu-wa.org
La Rond Baker | American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation | baker@aclu-wa.org
Jessica Wolfe | American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation | jwolfe@aclu-wa.org

SEIU v. Scott

Posted on by

Service Employees International Union, et al., v. Rodney S. Scott, et al., No. 1:26-cv-11251, (D. Mass., filed Mar. 13, 2026)

On March 13, 2026, Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and four airport workers who were members of 32BJ SEIU sued U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the District of Massachusetts to challenge the agency’s decision to revoke security clearances for at least 80 immigrant workers at Logan International Airport. According to the plaintiffs, represented by the Worker and Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School, the agency’s actions have forced these workers out of their jobs and put thousands more at risk of losing theirs at airports nationwide.

The lawsuit argues that CBP’s actions have already left SEIU members unemployed without meaningful explanation or due process at Logan International Airport, John F. Kennedy International Airport, Orlando International Airport, San Francisco International Airport, and Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. The complaint further alleges CBP violated its own regulations, federal statute, and constitutional due process. The workers provided crucial airport services like handling baggage, cleaning airplane cabins, and transporting travelers in wheelchairs. Defendants filed their answer on June 12, 2026, and plaintiffs amended their complaint on July 20. On July 27, the court issued a briefing schedule. Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on August 20, and plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on September 17.

Documents

Counsel: Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic, Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization | Democracy Forward

Contacts: Michael J. Wishnie | Worker & Immigrant Rights Advocacy Clinic | michael.wishnie@ylsclinics.org

Anna Deffebach | Democracy Forward | adeffebach@democracyforward.org

Al Otro Lado, et al., v. Trump

Posted on by

Al Otro Lado, et al., v. Trump, et al., No. 3:25-cv-01501 (S.D. Cal., filed Jun. 11, 2025)

On June 11, 2025, a group of individuals and organizational plaintiffs filed the latest challenge to the Trump administration’s attempt to shut down access to asylum at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. The administration has taken drastic steps to block access to the asylum process, in violation of U.S. law. On January 20, 2025, the president issued a proclamation that made it effectively impossible for individuals to present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border to seek asylum. In doing so, the government pulled the rug out from under people who had been waiting to schedule appointments at ports of entry and imposed vague, onerous documentation requirements as a pretext to bar access to the asylum process.

The administration also abruptly canceled all advance appointments that had been scheduled through the government’s CBP One app, leaving approximately 30,000 asylum seekers stranded in Mexico without any recourse. One of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit, Maria Doe, scheduled an appointment through CBP One in hopes of seeking asylum after suffering a years-long retaliation campaign by a cartel that had targeted her for testifying against its police collaborators in Mexico. The appointment was cancelled on January 20, forcing Maria and her husband into hiding. The complaint seeks relief from the presidential proclamation and an end to the shutdown of asylum at ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border.

On June 25, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class and a motion to proceed pseudonymously, and defendants filed oppositions to both motions.

On September 11, 2025, defendants moved to dismiss the case, and plaintiffs filed their opposition on November 24, 2025.

On September 24, 2025, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to unseal the case; the motion for class certification and motion to dismiss remain pending.

Documents:

Counsel: American Immigration Council ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies ǀ Democracy Forward ǀ Center for Constitutional Rights

Contact: Rebecca Cassler ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rcassler@immcouncil.org
Melissa Crow ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies ǀ crowmelissa@uclawsf.edu

Press:

Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology v. CBP

Posted on by

Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, et al., v. CBP, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01732 (D.D.C., filed June 2, 2025)

On August 1, 2024, Plaintiffs Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, and Americans for Immigrant Justice submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to defendants Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking records related to the agencies’ policies and practices on the collection and use of noncitizen DNA. The agencies failed to make a determination on the FOIA requests and failed to produce the responsive records within the time prescribed by FOIA, leading plaintiffs to file suit on June 2, 2025.

The lawsuit comes amid a widespread immigration crackdown by the administration and increased surveillance efforts. Plaintiff organizations allege that the agencies have not been transparent about their rapidly-expanding program of genetic data collection from migrants, including children. The suit expresses mounting concerns about both the scale and lack of oversight of DNA collection practices. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on August 20, 2025. The court subsequently ordered the parties to meet and confer and to file a joint status report proposing a schedule for defendants’ processing of responsive records. As of September 2026, production is ongoing and the parties continue to file periodic status reports with the court.

Documents:

Counsel: Amica Center for Immigrant Rights ǀ Georgetown University Law Center ǀ Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Amelia Dagen ǀ Amica Center for Immigrant Rights ǀ amelia@amicacenter.org
Stevie Glaberson ǀ Georgetown University Law Center ǀ stephanie.glaberson@georgetown.edu

Press:

Perez Perez v. USA

Posted on by

Perez Perez v. USA, No. 3:25-cv-01821 (S.D. Cal., filed Jul. 17, 2025)

On October 22, 2024, Jesus Atenco Perez was one of two passengers killed in a vehicle crash as a U.S. Border Patrol agent pursued them at high speeds on a southern California highway. Atenco Perez’s mother filed a wrongful death lawsuit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on July 17, 2025, alleging the chase caused undue risk for her son and for others on the road. The suit alleges that the chase violated California Law Enforcement Vehicle Pursuit Guidelines, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) directives, and other agency policies and recommendations.

Defendant Border Patrol Agent D. Boone initiated the chase after the vehicle passed through the Otay Mesa Port of Entry based on suspicion that the vehicle had mismatched plates. The lawsuit alleges the agent failed to adequately apply a risk-based “objective reasonableness” standard in initiating the pursuit, and should have weighed the government’s interest in apprehension (in this case, severity of the suspected crime of mismatched plates) with the risks to the public, officers, and vehicle occupants. The agent also failed to consider the high volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic and the availability of alternative means to apprehend the driver later, as the vehicle’s description and license plates were known. CBP policy mandates pursuits be initiated “only when the need for immediate apprehension outweighs the risks to public safety,” such as when it involves a violent felony. According to the complaint, CBP policies require pursuing agents “to maintain a safe distance to avoid pressuring the suspect into increasingly dangerous maneuvers.” The complaint faults CBP for failing to implement stricter protocols and training, and alleges the agency was aware of at least three prior pursuits on state Route 905 that year that resulted in “collisions or near-misses.”

On September 18, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action. On October 7, 2025, the plaintiff submitted a response opposing the government’s motion to dismiss.

On December 24, 2025, the court vacated the motion hearing, stating that the motion is suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument.

Documents:

Counsel: Joseph C. La Costa

Contact: Joseph C. La Costa ǀ joelacostaesq@gmail.com

Press:

Sileiri Doe, et al, v. DHS

Posted on by

Sileiri Doe, et al, v. DHS, et al., No. 1:25-cv-12245 (D. Mass, filed Aug. 11, 2025)

The Venezuelan Association of Massachusetts and three individuals from Venezuela, Cuba, and Haiti, respectively, filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) challenging the Trump administration’s sudden and unlawful termination of the plaintiff’s parole status, which allowed them to live and work legally in the United States.

Starting in 2023, noncitizens seeking asylum or other immigration relief in the United States were required to use the CBP One mobile application to schedule appointments at ports of entry. After inspection by immigration officials, some were granted parole. However, in April 2025, through a mass email with the message, “It is time for you to leave the United States,” DHS notified hundreds of thousands of noncitizens that their parole status was terminated, and, as a result, their work authorizations and eligibility for certain benefits were also revoked. The email threatened penalties in order to encourage self-deportation.

The complaint alleges that this unlawful policy violates federal law, which requires a case-by-case determination that the purpose of parole was served before it can be ended. The shift in policy also ignores noncitizens’ legal rights and disrupts their lives, costing them jobs, homes, access to health care, and placing them at risk of deportation.

On October 16, 2025, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment against the government. On November 6, 2025, the government filed a consolidated motion to dismiss, cross-motion for summary judgment, and opposition to plaintiffs’ motion. On March 31, 2026, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, denied three of plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and granted the remaining claims presented in plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment. The court ordered that the terminations of class members’ parole statuses announced by the April 2025 termination email are vacated pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706, and ordered defendants to return class members to the parole status they held prior to the termination email. On April 8, 2026, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for order to show cause requesting an emergency status conference, due to the parties’ disagreement on the scope of relief granted by the court and the required timeline for defendants to implement that relief. On April 14, the court clarified that defendants are ordered to confirm that they have 1) created a final list of individuals whose parole will be reinstated pursuant to the order, and 2) reinstated parole for those individuals, or show cause for any delay.

Defendants filed a status report on April 21, and plaintiffs filed an emergency motion to enforce compliance on April 23. On April 25, plaintiffs filed an emergency motion for administrative stay of additional parole terminations announced by defendants, arguing that re-terminating plaintiffs’ parole would undermine their requested relief. The court denied the emergency motion for stay, finding its previous order vacated procedurally flawed agency action, and did not grant plaintiffs a substantive entitlement to parole. However, on July 15, the court concluded that defendants did fail to comply with the March 31 order which required them to return class members to the parole status they held prior to the termination email, and further concluded defendants’ conduct merits a limited inherent-powers sanction. The court ordered the parties to confer and submit a joint revised proposed order, which the parties submitted on August 31.

Documents:

Counsel: Massachusetts Law Reform Institute ǀ Democracy Forward Foundation

Contact: Heather Arroyo ǀ Massachusetts Law Reform Institute ǀ harroyo@mlri.org

Press: Lawsuit challenging revocation of parole for migrants in US under Biden-era CBP One App, NBC 6 Miami, Aug. 12, 2025.

Pedro Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem

Posted on by

Pedro Vasquez Perdomo, et al., v. Kristi Noem, et al., No. 2:25-cv-05605 (C.D. Cal., filed July 2, 2025)

Since June 6, 2025, the federal government has dramatically increased the presence and activity of immigration enforcement officers, including U.S. Border Patrol agents, in the Los Angeles area. As part of this increased activity and in response to growing pressure from the administration to satisfy arrest quotas, officers in roving patrols have relied on perceived race or ethnicity, rather than reasonable suspicion that the target was subject to removal, to conduct stops, warrantless home raids, and worksite operations.

On July 2, five individuals who were stopped or arrested during large-scale raids in the Los Angeles area, along with three membership organizations (Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights) and a legal services provider (Immigrant Defenders Law Center), filed a class action lawsuit calling to end unlawful stops and arrests, and for the protection of due process and access to counsel for people in immigration detention as a result of those arrests. Counsel for the plaintiffs filed two motions for temporary restraining orders (TRO): one seeking access to counsel for those individuals detained in a basement area of the Los Angeles Federal Building and a second motion to restrain government agents from conducting unlawful stops. The district court granted both motions, prohibiting the government from making stops based solely on the following four factors: apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or speaking English with an accent, presence at a particular location, or the type of work one does. The government appealed the orders to the Ninth Circuit, requesting a stay of the orders during appeal. The Ninth Circuit granted in part and denied in part the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, finding the government failed to dispute that seizures requiring reasonable suspicion had occurred and holding that plaintiffs have standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that one provision of the TRO was impermissibly vague and stayed that one provision, but held that the district court did not err by entering a district-wide TRO prohibiting stops based on the four enumerated factors. Back at district court, plaintiffs filed motions for preliminary injunctions on the same issues, access to counsel and unconstitutional stops, as well as a motion for class certification. The government filed an application for a stay with the Supreme Court.

On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the government’s application for stay. In a concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh applied the Nken four-factor framework, noting a “fair prospect” that the Government would ultimately succeed on the merits. Justice Kavanaugh also noted the district court’s injunction accordingly constituted irreparable harm because it prevented the government from effectuating the Immigration and Nationality Act. Ultimately, Justice Kavanaugh concluded, “the balance of harms and equities in this case tips in favor of the Government.”

On July 29, 2025, several cities and the County of Los Angeles filed a complaint in intervention for declaratory and injunctive relief, seeking to enjoin defendants from continuing to conduct unlawful arrests in the area. On August 13, the intervenor cities and county filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On November 13, the District Court issued an order granting intervenors’ preliminary injunction motion.

On February 26, 2026, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint alleging that the defendants’ unreasonable military-style tactics purposely target Latino communities in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee and the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable seizure. Plaintiffs contend that the government’s intentional raids of locations based on race and apparent ethnicity violate equal protection and that the immigration agents’ use of handcuffs, confinement, use of force, and prolonged detention turn encounters into unlawful arrests.

On June 8, 2026, Plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction and moved to certify a class to halt the ongoing warrantless arrests. On July 27, plaintiffs moved for preliminary injunction to halt suspicionless stops and ongoing violations of the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection guarantee. On August 8, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint, and defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint on August 25. On September 2, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction regarding the warrantless arrests, and enjoined defendants from enforcing their policy and practice of making warrantless civil immigration arrests in the district without a pre-arrest individualized determination by the arresting agent or officer of probable cause that the person being arrested is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, as required by 8 U.S.C. 1357(a)(2) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2). The court also granted plaintiffs’ motion to certify a Warrantless Arrest Class and appointed class counsel.

Documents:

Contact: Mayra Joaquin ǀ ACLU Foundation of Southern California ǀ mjoaquin@aclusocal.org