Category Archives: Arrests/Searches & Seizures

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)

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)).

On April 20, 2026, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which defendants subsequently moved to dismiss. Defendants have also moved for a stay of discovery. As of June 2026, briefing is ongoing on both motions.

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.

On March 9, 2026, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to seek forward-looking injunctive relief due to their failure to show a future injury that is certainly impending. The court also found that Plaintiffs had not shown an irreparable injury likely in the immediate future given the reduction in scope of the defendants’ Minnesota focused operations. The court laid out findings of fact and conclusions of law in its opinion, noting that Plaintiffs have shown 1) that Defendants likely maintained unconstitutional stop and arrest policies, 2) Defendants’ agents stopped twenty-three individuals without reasonable suspicion of immigration law violations, 3) Plaintiffs have made a clear showing that there was not reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity supporting the stops of these twenty-three individuals, and 4) several Plaintiffs were stopped based solely on their race or ethnicity.

The court also found in its opinion that the proposed classes in this case would not be certifiable, denying Plaintiffs’ motion for provisional class certification.

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:

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 constituent agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), 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.

On May 5, 2026, the Court granted in part Defendants’ motion for extension of time to answer setting the deadline for Defendants to file an answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint to and including June 8, 2026. 

Documents

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

Contact:  Kristi Graunke | kgraunke@acluofnc.org

Press:

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.

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 to halt the ongoing warrantless arrests.

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

United Farm Workers v. Noem

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Documents:

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

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