Category Archives: California

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:

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:

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

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

Julian Sanchez Mora, et al., v. CBP, et. al.

Posted on by

Julian Sanchez Mora, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 3:24-cv-02430 (N.D. Cal., filed Apr. 24, 2024) and No. 1:24-cv-03136 (D.D.C., docketed Nov. 5, 2024)

Three immigration attorneys and two individual plaintiffs are suing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for failing to make a determination on each plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the 20 or, at most, 30 business days mandated by FOIA. Two plaintiffs had FOIA requests pending for over a year and a half at the time the complaint was filed. Because CBP engages in a nationwide pattern and practice of failing to make a determination on individual FOIA requests within the statutory timeframe, plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of similarly situated FOIA requestors who must wait for prolonged periods for determinations on their requests.

In addition to class certification, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief ordering CBP to respond to FOIA requests for an individual’s records that have been pending for more than 30 business days without a determination and ordering CBP to make timely determinations as required by FOIA. Significant delays in FOIA productions often mean that immigrants and their attorneys are unable to know crucial information for immigration cases, such as when the individual traveled, if the individual was subject to any inspections, if the individual was ever deported, or any other meaningful action that could impact their ability to make an effective defense and to apply for status.

On July 15, 2024, defendants filed a motion to transfer or dismiss the case, arguing lack of jurisdiction and improper venue in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 2 clarifying why jurisdiction and venue in that district were proper. However, on November 4, 2024, the court granted defendants’ motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ FOIA claim against DHS and transferring the case to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the dismissal of the FOIA claim against Defendant DHS on January 31, which was granted by the D.C. District Court on June 18, 2025, and the FOIA claim reinstated.

On September 12, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in the D.C. District Court. Defendants oppose the motion and have requested extensions of time to answer.

Documents:

Counsel:

National Immigration Litigation Alliance ǀ Northwest Immigrant Rights Project ǀ Van Der Hout LLP

Contact: Matt Adams ǀ Northwest Immigrant Rights Project ǀ matt@nwirp.org

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center v. CBP

Posted on by

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 2:24-cv-03815 (C.D. Cal., filed May 8, 2024); No. 1:24-cv-01956 (D. Colo., transferred July 16, 2024)

Al Otro Lado, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, and the Texas Civil Rights Project filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) in the Central District of California to compel the government to release information about its policies and practices related to the CBP One app and to asylum-seekers with disabilities.

The government has forced asylum-seekers to use the CBP One App since May 2023 — when Title 42 was lifted — to schedule asylum interviews with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials at U.S. ports of entry. The lawsuit comes after a report by Human Rights Watch criticized the app as a modern-day form of metering to keep asylum-seekers from crossing ports of entry. The suit also seeks information as it relates to discrimination of asylum-seekers with disabilities. The complaint alleges that the government has not provided the information the groups requested in administrative FOIA requests.

The lawsuit notes that CBP One requires a smartphone and a high level of technological proficiency to install and use, and alleges that the application is prone to frequent glitches and other technical issues. This in turn leads to discriminatory practices against individuals with disabilities and unequal access to the asylum process for anyone experiencing barriers to downloading and using the app.

Specifically, the lawsuit seeks from CBP all final agency opinions and orders, policies, interpretations, and administrative staff manuals and instructions concerning Technology Accessibility for persons with disabilities as that information relates to CBP One.

On July 15, 2024, the court, after the parties jointly stipulated, transferred the case to the District of Colorado, and CBP filed its answer on July 31, 2024. Production is now ongoing.

Documents:

Contact: Laura Murchie ǀ Disability Rights United ǀ lmurchie@creeclaw.org
Jeremy Jong ǀ Al Otro Lado ǀ jeremy@alotrolado.org

Press:

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies v. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Center for Gender and Refugee Studies, et al. v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 3:24-cv-01601 (N.D. Cal., filed Mar. 14, 2024)

Since at least late 2022, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has forced thousands of migrants to await processing for asylum or other relief in dangerous and squalid open-air detention sites along the California-Mexico border without reliable access to food, water, shelter, warmth, sanitation, or medical care.Initially located near San Ysidro, CBP has expanded its use of outdoor detention to locations near Jacumba and reports indicate CBP has added new locations in the Otay Mountain Wilderness.

Al Otro Lado submitted two requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) – one in October 2023 and a second, joined by the Center for Gender and Refugee Studies (CGRS), in December 2023, seeking records regarding CBP’s activities at these detention sites – what CBP calls “gathering sites.” The FOIAs seek to uncover CBP’s policies and practices surrounding the detention sites, including their supervision and monitoring of the sites. When CBP failed to respond to either request, CGRS and Al Otro Lado filed suit under FOIA to compel the production of responsive records.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado & Center for Gender and Refugee Studies

Contact: Edith Sangueza | Center for Gender and Refugee Studies | sanguezaedith@uclawsf.edu

Estate of Joel Reyes Munoz v. USA

Posted on by

Estate of Joel Reyes Munoz, et al., v. United States of America, No. 3:23-cv-01422 (S.D. Cal., filed Aug. 3, 2023)

On August 3, 2023, the family of Joel Reyes Munoz filed a complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act and California state law in the Southern District of California against the federal government for the wrongful death of Mr. Reyes Munoz, who died after falling from a border wall near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. The complaint, filed on behalf of Mr. Reyes Munoz’s estate, his widow, and children, alleges that on January 12, 2022, law enforcement refused to seek medical attention for Mr. Reyes Munoz after he fell from the wall. Although it was obvious that he had sustained serious injuries and was in need of immediate emergency medical care, Border Patrol and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials refused to bring him to an emergency hospital facility. Instead, after the fall, Mr. Reyes Munoz was arrested and held in custody at the Otay Mesa Port of Entry. He later “became ill and eventually unresponsive,” according to CBP. Lifesaving efforts commenced, but he was pronounced dead about an hour and 45 minutes after his fall.

Only when Mr. Reyes Munoz became unconscious and stopped breathing did any government official summon emergency medical services. By that time, Mr. Reyes Munoz, because of the delay, had already died. Border fall deaths and injuries in the San Diego area had been on the rise around the time of Reyes Munoz’s death, according to the complaint. The suit alleges the increase in fall incidents should have put Border Patrol and CBP officials on notice of the potentially fatal consequences.

Figures from the San Diego County Medical Examiner indicate there were zero such deaths between 2016 and 2018, but 16 people died from border barrier falls between 2019 and 2021, according to the complaint. Fall injuries during those same time periods also increased from 67 between 2016 and 2018 to 375 between 2019 and 2021.

The government filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claim under California’s Bane Act for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on October 20, 2023. The court granted the motion to dismiss that claim on February 13, 2024. On February 27, 2024, the government filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ complaint. The case is now in discovery, with status updates ongoing and a mandatory settlement conference scheduled for December 6, 2024.

Documents

Counsel: Iredale & Yoo, APC

Press

Al Otro Lado v. Mayorkas

Posted on by

Al Otro Lado, et al., v. Alejandro Mayorkas, et al., No. 3:23-cv-01367 (S.D. Cal., filed Jul. 27, 2023) and No. 23-3396 (9th Cir., filed Nov. 9, 2023)

This lawsuit challenges the federal government’s border-wide policy and practice of turning back asylum seekers without an appointment scheduled through the CBP One mobile application at ports of entry (POEs) along the southern border, denying them access to the U.S. asylum process. The suit seeks to end U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP’s) newest iteration of unlawful metering, and to ensure that the government is complying with U.S. laws meant to protect asylum seekers’ rights and safety.

Restricting asylum access to only those individuals who can use a smartphone app imposes unfair and at times insurmountable barriers for asylum seekers. The CBP One Turnback Policy, under which CBP officers turn back most asylum seekers who cannot secure an appointment made via the CBP One app, creates language, literacy, and disability access issues. There is evidence that CBP in some cities is coordinating with Mexican officials to block asylum seekers without CBP One appointments from physically approaching ports of entry. The policy therefore causes unreasonable delays and endangers asylum seekers’ lives. Even those able to use the app are denied appointments due to limited slots, forcing indefinite waits in precarious conditions in Mexico.

The plaintiffs in the suit are immigrant rights organizations Al Otro Lado and Haitian Bridge Alliance, and 10 individuals turned away at the southern border by CBP and denied their fundamental right to seek asylum in the United States.

The CBP One Turnback Policy has harmed plaintiffs, leaving them vulnerable to assault, rape, kidnapping, and even murder in dangerous Mexican border towns. It also disrupts organizations’ missions, diverting resources to counteract the policy’s harmful effects.

On August 9, 2023, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction to block the implementation of the policy until the case is decided, along with a motion to provisionally certify a class. If granted, the government would be required to follow its own binding guidance, and process all people seeking asylum at ports of entry, regardless of whether they are lucky enough to obtain a CBP One appointment.

On October 23, 2023, the court denied the motion for preliminary injunction in an oral opinion, holding that the jurisdictional bar at 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred injunctive relief. The court also denied the motion for provisional class certification as moot based on the denial of the preliminary injunction. On November 11, 2023, plaintiffs filed a notice of interlocutory appeal on both denied motions to the Ninth Circuit. Briefing is complete and oral arguments were heard on May 13, 2024. Back at the district court, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 13, 2023, for failure to state a claim and lack of jurisdiction. Briefing on the motion was completed on February 12, 2024.

On June 5, 2024, defendants filed a notice with the court regarding President Biden’s proclamation limiting asylum seekers at the southern border, contending that the President’s recent action on immigration is relevant to plaintiffs’ claims in this matter concerning operations at land ports of entry along the U.S.-Mexico border. The parties submitted briefing on how the presidential action might affect plaintiffs’ claims.

On September 30, 2024, the court denied the government’s motion in large part, dismissing only Plaintiffs’ claims that enjoin or bind Mexican officials/persons outside of US federal agencies, and Plaintiffs’ Alien Tort Statute claim.

Documents

Counsel: American Immigration Council | the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies | Center for Constitutional Rights | Mayer Brown LLP | Vinson & Elkins LLP

Contact:  Suchita Mathur | American Immigration Council | smathur@immcouncil.org

Press:

East Bay Sanctuary, et al., v. Biden, et al.

Posted on by

East Bay Sanctuary, et al., v. Joseph R. Biden, President of the United States, et al., No. 4:18-cv-06810 (N.D. Cal., amended complaint filed May 11, 2023) and No. 23-16032 (9th Cir., filed July 26, 2023)

Anticipating the end of the policy that allowed for the expulsion of asylum-seekers arriving at the U.S./Mexico border under Title 42, on May 10, 2023, the Biden administration issued a new final rule that bars certain asylum seekers from asylum if they did not apply for asylum in a country they passed through on their way to the United States or failed to obtain advance permission to arrive at a port of entry or travel to the United States. The exceptions to this new asylum ban are extremely narrow. This is the third in a string of asylum bans attempting to bar many people from the asylum process. The first two originated under the Trump administration and were found unlawful by the district court in this case and the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs originally filed this lawsuit on November 9, 2018, in response to the Trump administration’s first asylum ban, which barred anyone who did not enter the United States at a port of entry from receiving asylum. The district court found this first ban unlawful and enjoined it. The Ninth Circuit affirmed those orders on February 28, 2020, (and in an amended opinion on March 24, 2021). The case was stayed.

On July 16, 2019, East Bay Sanctuary and others filed a related lawsuit in the same court challenging the second asylum ban, which barred those who did not apply for asylum in a country they transited through on their way to the United States from seeking asylum in the United States. The district court similarly preliminarily enjoined the second asylum rule as likely unlawful and the Ninth Circuit ultimately affirmed that order on July 6, 2020, (amended April 8, 2021).

On May 11, 2023, Plaintiffs sought leave to amend their complaint in this case to challenge the third asylum ban. Defendants consented to the filing of the amended complaint and to lifting the stay on the case. Plaintiffs argue that the new rule is unlawful for the same reasons the first two asylum bans were unlawful. It will effectively eliminate asylum for nearly all non-Mexican asylum seekers who enter between designated ports of entry, and even for those who present at a port of entry if they have not first secured an appointment.

On July 25, 2023, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ cross-motion, vacating the rule yet again. The government appealed the order, and on August 3, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the administration’s transit ban can continue through September, staying the lower court decision. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on November 7, 2023, and the parties await a decision of the court. On February 21, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted a motion filed by the parties to hold the case in abeyance pending settlement negotiations in this case and a related case, M.A. v. Mayorkas, No. 1:23-cv-1843 (D.D.C.). On October 21, 2024, the Supreme Court denied a petition for writ of certiorari filed by the states of Kansas, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and West Virginia, challenging the Ninth Circuit’s order granting the hold.

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Immigrant Rights Project | Center for Gender & Refugee Studies | National Immigrant Justice Center | ACLU of Northern California

Contact: Katrina Eiland | ACLU Immigrant Rights Project | keiland@aclu.org

Press: