Category Archives: All Cases

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.

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.

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.

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, et al., v. Noem, et al.

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.

Documents:

Counsel: Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin ǀ ACLU Foundation of Southern California ǀ Public Counsel ǀ UC Irvine School of Law ǀ National Day Laborer Organizing Network ǀ American Civil Liberties Union Northern California ǀ ACLU Foundation of San Diego & Imperial Counties ǀ Hecker Fink LLP ǀ Martinez Aguilasocho Law, Inc. ǀ Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights ǀ Immigrant Defenders Law Center

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

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. A hearing has been scheduled for December 1.

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

Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, et. al. v. Dept. of Health and Human Services, et. al.

Posted on by

Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Center, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, et al., No. 1:24-cv-6740 (S.D.N.Y., filed Sept. 5, 2024)

The Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project, Center for Constitutional Rights, and an individual, L.B., filed a complaint on September 5, 2024, after the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not comply with their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. The plaintiffs requested documents under FOIA regarding HHS’s, CBP’s, ICE’s, and DHS’s radiograph practices and policies in June 2024. Specifically, plaintiffs are seeking information about defendants solely relying on dental radiographs to determine the age of unaccompanied minor children. This practice is alleged to be a violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA) which requires defendants to rely on more than radiographs to determine the age of children. This determination is significant because using only the radiographs can lead to incorrect determinations of children as adults and result in their placement in adult immigrant detention centers. Placing the children in adult facilities deprives them of the additional benefits children receive in custody, such as access to education, counseling, and less restrictive settings.

After a telephone conference on May 27, 2025, the court ordered defendants to file a letter brief and declaration addressing the processing schedule for the requested records of both CBP and HHS, as well as briefing on addressing the legality of using a reduction in force at HHS (including terminations and/or placements on administrative leave) as a basis for delaying the processing and production of records pursuant to FOIA. As of August 2025, the parties continue to file joint status reports and production is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Center for Constitutional Rights ǀ Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project

Contact: Laura Belous (lbelous@firrp.org) | Rocio Castaneda (rcastaneda@firrp.org)

Press: