Category Archives: All Cases

Tincher v. Noem

Posted on by

Tincher et al. v. Noem et al., 0:25‑cv‑04669 (D. Minn., filed December 17, 2025)

On December 17, 2025, Tincher and five others challenged the federal government’s immigration raids and practices which ensued during “Operation Metro Surge.” This class action alleges indiscriminate immigration raids by masked, militarized federal agents who conducted arrests at homes, businesses, and on public streets. Plaintiffs contend that community members who observed or protested were subjected to harassment, excessive force, detention, and retaliation including being followed home, struck with chemical irritants or rubber bullets, and arrested without probable cause.

Plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, including interference with free speech, free press, and peaceful assembly, as well as unlawful retaliation. They also assert Fourth Amendment violations for arrests without probable cause, unreasonable seizures, excessive force, and a civil conspiracy.

On December 18, 2025, plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) asking the court to bar federal defendants from engaging in a range of alleged unlawful conduct relating to immigration enforcement operations. The requested protections included prohibiting dispersal or use of force without probable cause, limiting use of crowd control weapons absent immediate threats and warnings, barring interference with people recording federal law enforcement, safeguarding lawful movement and recording, and requiring visible identification and body-worn cameras.

At a December 19th status conference, the court converted the TRO motion into one for a preliminary injunction. On January 8th, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the conversion decision citing extraordinary circumstances, including the deployment of additional federal agents to Minneapolis and the January 7th fatal shooting of Renee Good.

On January 16, 2026, the court granted the motion for preliminary injunction in part and denied it in part. The court prohibited federal agents from retaliating against individuals engaged in peaceful and unobstructive protests or observation, arresting or detaining people without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime, or using pepper spray or similar crowd control weapons in retaliation for protected conduct. Federal agents were also prohibited from stopping and detaining drivers or passengers absent reasonable suspicion or forceful obstruction interference.

Defendants appealed and on January 26, 2026, the Eighth Circuit stayed the lower court’s ruling pending appeal finding that the government was likely to prevail on the merits and the injunction was too vague.

Following additional excessive force at the hand of federal agents, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2026. The amended complaint adds Customs and Border Protection as well as Gregory Bovino, Chief Border Patrol Agent, to the list of defendants. The complaint also adds five new plaintiffs.

The amended complaint alleges a policy and pattern of retaliation for investigating, recording, and protesting federal immigration agents’ activity in public. The amended complaint also alleges a policy and pattern of excessive force, the use of chemical agents, unlawful arrests, surveillance, and intimidation.

Documents

Counsel: ACLU of Minnesota, Ciresi Conlin, Forsgren Fisher, and Riach Law

Contact:  Teresa Nelson (tnelson@aclu-mn.org)

Press:

Minnesota v. Noem

Posted on by

State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis & City of St. Paul v. Noem et al., No. 26‑cv‑00190 (D. Minn., filed Jan. 12, 2026)

The state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul sued the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and Border Patrol, among others, on January 12, 2026.

In December 2025, the federal government launched “Operation Metro Surge,” deploying thousands of immigration enforcement agents into Minnesota, including into the cities of Saint Paul and Minneapolis. The operation escalated and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot Minnesota resident, Renee Good, on January 7, 2026. A second peaceful protester was killed on January 24, 2026, while litigation was pending. In response, Minnesota, Saint Paul, and Minneapolis filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that the operation was unlawful and unconstitutional.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the Tenth amendment, First Amendment, and Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that Operation Metro Surge unlawfully intruded on state sovereignty, reflected unconstitutional animus toward the state’s democratic leadership, and was implemented without required administrative procedures. The state simultaneously sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the operation and prevent further unlawful conduct including racial profiling, excessive force, and retaliation.

On January 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court denied the TRO concluding that the state had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. The court also concluded that it lacked authority to suspend the operation, citing Eighth Circuit precedent cautioning against judicial interference with federal immigration enforcement efforts (Tincher v. Noem, 164 F.4th 1097 (8th Cir. 2026)).

Documents

Counsel: State of Minnesota Attorney General | Minneapolis City Attorney | Saint Paul City Attorneys

Contact:  Liz Kramer | liz.kramer@ag.state.mn.us

Press:


Mubashir Khalif Hussen v. Noem

Posted on by

Mubashir Khalif Hussen, et al, v. Noem, et al., No. 0:26-cv-00324 (D. Minn., filed Jan. 15, 2026)

On January 15, 2026, plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security and its subagencies, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to halt unlawful policies and practices in Minnesota. Plaintiffs allege that federal authorities, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, dramatically escalated enforcement operations, deploying large numbers of masked agents in military-style gear throughout Minnesota. According to the complaint, these operations disproportionately targeted Somali and Latino residents under “Operation Metro Surge.”

Plaintiffs challenge what they describe as a policy of racial profiling, unlawful stops, and arrests that were carried out without warrants or probable cause, asserting violations of constitutional protections under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. They argue that federal agents stopped people without reasonable suspicion of removability, arrested people without warrants and without probable cause to believe that those individuals are removable, and that federal agents made arrests without probable cause to believe there was flight risk. Plaintiffs allege individuals were detained solely based on perceived ethnicity, infringing on their rights to equal protection and freedom from unreasonable seizures.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which is fully brief and was argued on February 18, 2026. The parties await a decision from the court.

Documents:

Counsel: American Civil Liberties Union | ACLU of Minnesota | Covington & Burling LLP | Greene Espel PLLP | Robins Kaplan LLP

Contact: Kate Huddleston | khuddleston@aclu.org

Press:

Hilton v. Noem

Posted on by

Hilton et al. v. Noem et al., No. 2:26‑cv‑00092 (D. Me., filed Feb. 23, 2026)

Two residents from Maine brought a class action against the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement on behalf of similarly situated individuals in the District Court of Maine on February 23, 2026, contending violations of their First Amendment rights. They alleged that while they were engaged in political activity, including protesting during the federal government’s immigration crack down, their faces were scanned, and their personal data was collected by federal agents. They allege that they were told by government agents that they were placed on a government watch list. Plaintiffs allege that they are being targeted by immigration agents despite engaging in protected and lawful protest activity.

Plaintiffs ask that any data collected or maintained about the class members pertaining to their protest activities be expunged. Plaintiffs’ motion for temporary restraining order asks that defendants cease unlawful collection, maintenance, and dissemination of their data as well as from threatening, harassing, and retaliating against them for engaging their First Amendment protected activity.

The hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order is set for March 16, 2026.

Documents

Counsel: Drummond Woodson | Protect Democracy Project | Dunn Isaacson Rhee LLP

Contact:  Melissa Hewey | mheewey@dwmlaw.com

Press:

Aceituno v. DHS

Posted on by

Aceituno et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 3:26‑cv‑00146 (W.D.N.C., filed Feb. 24, 2026)

On February 24, 2026, five Latino North Carolina residents filed a class action challenging warrantless immigration arrests carried out across North Carolina by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and Border Patrol. The complaint alleges that armed and masked federal agents conducted indiscriminate arrests in the Western District of North Carolina without warrants or lawful justification.

The named plaintiffs contend that each of them was arrested without a warrant and without the individualized probable cause required under federal law. They argue that the Immigration and Nationality Act permits a warrantless immigration arrest only when an officer has “reason to believe” that a person is removable and likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that DHS’s warrantless arrest policies and practices are unlawful and seeks a permanent injunction barring the agencies from conducting such arrests absent individualized probable cause.

Documents

Counsel: ACLU of North Carolina | ACLU | Democracy Forward | Southern Coalition for Social Justice (SCSJ)

Contact:  Kristi Graunke | kgraunke@acluofnc.org

Press:

CLEAR Clinic and PCUN v. Noem et al.

Posted on by

CLEAR Clinic and Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste v. Noem et al., No. 25-cv-01906 (D. Or., filed Oct. 16, 2025)

On October 16, 2025, the CLEAR Clinic and Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its agents in response to a wave of over 300 arrests in October, which continued with 150 arrests in November. The complaint alleged that the government denied lawyers access to detained clients at Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Portland and Eugene field offices on multiple occasions, even when attorneys presented signed representation forms.

On October 29, 2025, the District Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order, and set an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction for December 12, 2025. On November 12, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging and further documenting that ICE, Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and DHS have repeatedly held individuals and cut them off from communications after arrests, despite attempts by lawyers to meet with them at ICE field offices in Oregon. Plaintiffs allege the federal government then rapidly transfers clients out of the state.

Documents:

Counsel: Innovation Law Lab

Contact: Stephen Manning, Innovation Law Lab (smanning@ilgrp.com)

Press: KATU 2, Immigrant rights groups sue ICE, DHS, alleging ‘systemic assault’ on legal counsel access, Oct. 17, 2025 (https://katu.com/news/local/immigrant-rights-groups-sue-ice-dhs-alleging-systemic-assault-on-legal-counsel-access-oregon-trump-administration-immigration-anti-facist-antifa-portland-politics)

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.

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. As of February 2026, a decision has not been issued.

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.