Category Archives: Oregon

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)

Clark v. Wolf

Posted on by

Clark v. Wolf, No. 3:20-cv-1436 (D. Or., filed Aug. 24, 2020)

In July 2020, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers—in concert with other federal and local law enforcement officers—used violent crowd control devices on nonviolent protestors during ongoing Black Lives Matter protests in Portland, Oregon. This included the use of tear gas, pepper-spray balls, rubber bullets, and flashbangs, which disoriented and injured many protestors.

Four individuals who had participated in the protests brought a putative class action against federal law enforcement officers, seeking damages under Bivens for the physical and mental harms they had suffered from the defendants’ actions. Additionally, the plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the use of tear gas on peaceful protestors violates the First Amendment.

On February 3, 2022, the district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ damages claims on the basis that special factors counseled against the extending of Bivens to the context of plaintiffs’ claims. A rule 54(b) judgment issued, which plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

On June 27, 2022, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case and the pending appeal.

Documents:

Counsel: Pickett Dummigan McCall LLP | Elliot & Park PC | Sugerman Law Office | Harmon Johnson LLC | Chase Law PC | People’s Law Project | Piucci Law | Michelle R. Burrows PC