Category Archives: Racial Profiling

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)).

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. The parties await a decision from the court.

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 agencies, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, 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.

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.

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.  

Oral argument before the Ninth Circuit will be held on April 22, 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

National Immigration Project v. Department of Homeland Security

Posted on by

National Immigration Project, et al., v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00641 (D.D.C. filed March 6, 2024)

Following media reports that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Del Rio, Texas are disproportionately targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries for prosecution, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking data regarding the individuals prosecuted for certain offenses in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (Del Rio).

In August 2023, The L.A. Times first reported that federal prosecutors in Del Rio, Texas were charging people from Muslim-majority countries with illegal entry (8 U.S.C § 1325), illegal reentry (8 U.S.C § 1326), and the obscure offense of failing to properly report at entry (19 U.S.C. § 1459) at high rates, even though they make up a very small percentage of the people crossing the U.S.-Texas border.

On January 5, 2024, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates submitted their FOIA request to the Department of Justice and CBP – the agency generally responsible for referring people apprehended at the border for federal prosecution. The request seeks three categories of records: (1) records of the number of people prosecuted in Del Rio for the three relevant offenses, including their national origin; (2) records regarding the number of referrals made by CBP to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Del Rio for the relevant offenses, including national origin information; and (3) records showing the number of arrests by the Del Rio Sector of CBP, including national origin information.

When CBP and the Department of Justice failed to respond within the 30-day deadline set by FOIA, the National Immigration Project and Muslim Advocates filed suit on March 6, 2024, seeking to compel production of responsive records.

Documents:

Counsel: National Immigration Project; Muslim Advocates

Contact: Khaled Alrabe | National Immigration Project | khaled@nipnlg.org

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:22-cv-10301 (D. Mass., filed Feb. 23, 2022)

On February 23, 2020, the Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program (the Clinic) sued Customs and Border Protection (CBP) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Clinic filed the FOIA in response to CBP denying entry to several Harvard students of Middle Eastern descent—many from Iran. Some were given expedited removal orders or had their visas revoked, even though the Department of State performed extended security checks during the visa processing.

The FOIA request identified three categories of information the Clinic sought from CBP: (1) records regarding the expedited removal of students at a port of entry; (2) records regarding withdrawal of admission by students at a port of entry; and (3) directives, policies, and communications by CBP regarding visa holders at ports of entry. CBP failed to provide an adequate response. The Clinic requested documents starting January 1, 2012, and the only documents CBP produced were from 2020. CBP also failed to produce any policy directives.

The Clinic filed an administrative appeal, requesting the responsive records and all non-exempt portions of the records. The administrative appeals unit ordered CBP to conduct a new search, but CBP failed to timely respond, and the Clinic sued. Since the initial filing, CBP filed its answer to the complaint, and the parties have filed periodic status reports as production in response to the FOIA request continues. As of a status report filed August 2025, the parties have reached an end result of the litigation concerning the document-related dispute and are addressing the issue of attorneys’ fees.

On September 16, 2025, the district court administratively closed the case, noting that the issue of attorneys’ fees is the only outstanding task. The judge has allowed for further status reports from defendants following the October-November 2025 federal government shutdown.

Documents:

Counsel: Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School
Contact: Sabrineh Ardalan | sardalan@law.harvard.edu

Civil Rights Complaint Regarding CBP’s Mistreatment of Harvard Medical Fellow

Posted on by

On April 2, 2021, and April 18, 2021, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) denied Dr. Maryam, a Canadian citizen from Iran, entry into the United States. Dr. Maryam attempted to enter the United States using her Canadian passport and all necessary evidence to support her admission in J-1 status. She and her family planned to stay in the U.S. for two years during Dr. Maryam’s competitive two-year fellowship at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. The family planned to return to Canada after Dr. Maryam finished her fellowship.

During her first attempted entry, Dr. Maryam, her husband, and her two children drove with their belongings to the port of entry in Pembina, North Dakota. CBP pulled the family over for secondary inspection after seeing Dr. Maryam and her husband were born in Iran. CBP arbitrarily and discriminatorily interrogated Dr. Maryam’s husband for eight hours about his past in Iran, his thoughts and feelings about the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and his previous compulsory military service. Eventually, the family was turned back for allegedly failing to show non-immigrant intent—even after providing evidence of assets and ties to Canada. CBP issued an expedited removal order against Dr. Maryam’s husband and asked Dr. Maryam to withdraw her request for admission. CBP also took both fingerprints and DNA samples from Dr. Maryam and her husband before the family left the facility.

On April 18, 2021, Dr. Maryam attempted to enter the United States again. She planned to fly from Toronto to the United States, but CBP once again interrogated her and turned her back. This time, the CBP officer in secondary inspection denied her entry because (1) she allegedly had to wait until her husband’s case was resolved and (2) the CBP officer incorrectly told her that there that a “travel ban” against Iranian nationals prevented her from lawfully entering the country.

After her attempts to enter the U.S., Dr. Maryam filed an application for a J-1 visa with the U.S. Consulate (even though Canadian citizens are not required to apply for a visa in advance to enter the United States). The U.S. Consulate in Calgary refused to adjudicate the case, saying that it was waiting for her husband’s case to first be resolved.

In response to the inhumane treatment and rejection of Dr. Maryam and her family, Harvard Law School’s Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program filed an administrative complaint to the Department of Homeland Security Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL), requesting CRCL to further investigate the April 2 and April 18 incidents. Additionally, the Program filed a writ of mandamus in the district court, requesting the Department of State adjudicate Dr. Maryam’s visa within 15 days of an order, pursuant to the Administration Procedures Act (APA) or to the court’s Mandamus authority. (Case No. 1:22-cv-1162-ZMF (D.D.C.).) On July 20, 2022, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the mandamus action.

Counsel: Harvard Immigration and Refugee Clinical Program, Harvard Law School
Contact: Sabrineh Ardalan | sardalan@law.harvard.edu

State of Washington v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.

Posted on by

State of Washington v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 20-2-01236-32 (Spokane Cnty. Sup. Ct., consent decree filed Sept. 26, 2021)

In April 2020, the Attorney General of Washington (Bob Ferguson) filed a lawsuit against Greyhound Lines challenging its practice of allowing U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents on its buses to conduct warrantless and suspicionless immigration sweeps. Greyhound failed to warn customers of the sweeps, misrepresented its role in allowing the sweeps to occur on its buses, and subjected passengers to unlawful discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. The case was set for trial on September 27, 2021.

On September 26, 2021, the parties filed a consent decree which requires Greyhound to pay $2.2 million and to enact a number of corporate reforms to end its unlawful conduct. For example, Greyhound must establish and implement a clear policy that denies CBP agents permission to board its buses without warrants or reasonable suspicion in the state of Washington. The Attorney General has stated that the $2.2 million will be used to provide restitution to those passengers who were detained, arrested, or deported as a result of the immigration sweeps on Greyhound buses. On March 31, 2022, the Washington Attorney General’s office closed the settlement claims process.

Documents:

Counsel: Lane Polozola, Yesica Hernandez, Brian J. Sutherland, and Emily C. Nelson (Washington State Attorney General’s Office)

Contact: Yesica Hernandez | Washington State Attorney General’s Office | civilrights@atg.wa.gov

Press:  Greyhound Agrees to Pay $2.2 Million Over Immigration Sweeps on Buses

Grays v. Mayorkas

Posted on by

Johnny Grays, et al. v. Mayorkas, et al., No. 3:21-cv-10526-RHC-KGA (E.D. Mich., filed Mar. 9, 2021)

Johnny Grays, Mikal Williams, and Jermaine O. Broderick, Sr., are all Black Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) officers at the Blue Water Bridge in Port Huron, Michigan, where only four out of 275 CBP officers are Black. They claim that, for over a decade, CBP management at the Port Huron Port of Entry systematically targeted Black drivers for stops; subjected them to additional scrutiny, including criminal record checks; and treated them in an unprofessional and demeaning fashion. They also claim that as Black CBP officers they were subjected to a hostile, racist work environment in which other CBP officers repeatedly made racist comments and were demeaning.

On March 9, 2021, Grays, Williams, and Broderick, Sr. filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Michigan alleging widespread discrimination against Black travelers and Black CBP officers at the Port Huron, Michigan Port of Entry. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and on July 29, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion, dismissing Plaintiffs’ claim for discrimination under § 1981 as preempted by Title VII, but allowing Plaintiffs to proceed on their Title VII disparate treatment claim and allowing Grays to proceed on his Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims. The court also expressly permitted Plaintiffs Williams and Broderick to amend their complaint by August 20, 2021 to include Title VII retaliation claims after administratively exhausting. On August 12, 2021, Defendants filed their answer to the complaint. On August 23, 2021, after Plaintiffs advised the Court that their administrative remedies would not be exhausted by August 20 (as such claims can only be filed 180 days after filing an Equal Employment Opportunity administrative complaint), the Court issued an order permitting Plaintiffs to file their retaliation claims subsequent to this deadline. As such, the Court amended the case caption to reflect that Johnny Grays is the sole remaining Plaintiff in this action.

The parties engaged in discovery throughout the first half of 2022. In June 2022, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. On March 16, 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion for summary judgment. On October 6, 2023, the court dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to an agreement between the parties.

Counsel: Deborah Gordon Law

Contact: Deborah Gordon, Deborah Gordon Law | (248) 258-2500 | dgordon@deborahgordonlaw.com

Additional Links:

• Zack Linly, 3 Black Border Patrol Officers File Lawsuit Against CBP Alleging Constant Racial Profiling and Harassment of Black Travelers, The Root, Apr. 21, 2021.