Category Archives: All Cases

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

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)