Category Archives: Racial Profiling

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

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.

Clear, et al. v. CBP

Posted on by

Clear, et al., v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:19-cv-07079 (E.D.N.Y., filed Dec. 18, 2019)

The American Civil Liberties Union and CUNY Law School CLEAR Project filed a FOIA lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in December 2019 over its Tactical Terrorism Response Teams (TTRT), which plaintiffs argue are discriminatory against individuals from the Middle East.

The complaint alleges that CBP is deploying secret teams across at least 46 airports and other U.S. ports of entry which target, detain, and interrogate innocent travelers. Frequently TTRT officers request that travelers unlock their electronic devices and subject them to search. While TTRTs operate largely in secret, CBP has publicly admitted the teams are explicitly targeting individuals who are not on any government watchlist and whom the government has never identified as posing a security risk. Former CBP Commissioner and form acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Kevin McAleenan, has indicated TTRT officers may rely on their “instincts” or hunches to target travelers.

On February 21, 2021, the parties submitted cross-motions for summary judgment on all claims. The motions have been fully briefed and oral argument was held on April 26, 2021. On March 31, 2022, the Court indicated that it would partially grant and partially deny each party’s summary judgment motion. A written order was published on November 2, 2022, in which the court directed CBP to release all non-exempt and segregable information requested by Plaintiffs.

Additionally, the ACLU of Northern California has filed an administrative complaint on behalf of an individual who was detained and interrogated by a TTRT.

CBP’s Public Statements about TTRTs:

Press:

Counsel: American Civil Liberties Union

Contact: Scarlet Kim | American Civil Liberties Union Foundation | ScarletK@aclu.org

Mohanad Elshieky v. USA

Posted on by

Mohanad Elshieky v. United States of America, No. 2:20-cv-00064 (E.D. Wash., filed Feb. 14, 2020)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials unlawfully seized and detained Mr. Elshieky, an asylum recipient lawfully present in the United States, aboard a Greyhound bus in January 2019. Shortly after Mr. Elshieky boarded a Greyhound bus in Spokane, Washington, CBP officials entered the bus and began questioning and detaining people of color. A CBP official approached Mr. Elshieky and asked him to produce identification and to confirm his citizenship status. When Mr. Elshieky presented his valid Oregon driver’s license and valid USCIS employment authorization card, officers ordered him off the bus. Although Mr. Elshieky explained his immigration status—that he had been granted asylum recently—the officers accused him of possessing a forged employment authorization card and refused to believe him, saying “we’ve heard all this before” and “illegals say that all the time.” The officials continued to detain him and accused him of being unlawfully present as they confirmed his immigration status.

Mr. Elshieky filed an administrative complaint under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) on April 25, 2019, seeking $250,000 in damages for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment. CBP issued a final disposition denying the claim on September 11, 2019. On February 14, 2020, Mr. Elshieky filed a complaint in federal district court under the FTCA. On June 23, 2020, the court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss Mr. Elshieky’s claim of discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

After the court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Mr. Elshieky’s discrimination claim, Defendants filed their answer. Discovery is now beginning, and a bench trial has been postponed due to the pandemic. After a bench trial was postponed due to the pandemic, the case was referred to mediation and all deadlines were vacated. In March 2021, the government reached a settlement with Mr. Elshieky which included an award for damages. 

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | American Civil Liberties Union of Washington | Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Contact: Matt Adams | 206-957-8611 | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

Lisa Nowlin | 206-624-2184 | ACLU Washington

Suda and Hernandez v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Suda v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 4:19-cv-00010-BMM, (D. Mont., filed Feb. 14, 2019)

On May 16, 2018, Ana Suda and Martha Hernandez were shopping at a convenience store in the small town of Havre, Montana, where both reside, when they were seized and detained by CBP Agent Paul O’Neill. While in the checkout line, Ms. Hernandez gave a friendly hello to Defendant O’Neill who was in line behind them. He responded by asking the two women where they were born. Although Ms. Suda and Ms. Hernandez told the agent they were U.S. citizens, born in Texas and California, respectively, Defendant O’Neill proceeded to detain them. Even after giving Defendant O’Neill their Montana driver’s licenses, they were detained for forty minutes. The only reason both Defendant O’Neill and his supervisor subsequently gave for their detention was that Ms. Suda and Ms. Hernandez were speaking Spanish.

On February 14, 2019, the ACLU of Montana filed an action against CBP and its agents for violations of Ms. Suda and Ms. Hernandez’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. The complaint alleges that Defendant O’Neill stated he had asked for identification “because I came in [the convenience store] and saw that you guys are speaking Spanish which is very unheard of up here.” Defendant O’Neill’s supervisor confirmed that the women had been singled out for speaking Spanish and specifically admitted that CBP doesn’t detain individuals for speaking French.

The complaint alleges that other Latinos in the community similarly have been targeted by CBP agents. The suit names as defendants CBP, its Commissioner, Defendant O’Neal, and 25 “John Doe” agents. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief aimed at preventing CBP officers from stopping and detaining individuals solely on the basis of race, accent, and/or speaking Spanish. The Plaintiffs also seek compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add claims of negligence and false arrest under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA).

The government, which is representing all the defendants except for Defendant O’Neal, filed a motion to dismiss on April 19, 2019. Defendant O’Neal, through private counsel, submitted a motion to dismiss the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief on June 4, 2019. Defendant O’Neal did not seek dismissal of the Bivens claim for damages. Plaintiffs amended their complaint on January 29, 2020. The district court denied Defendant O’Neal’s motion to dismiss and denied in part and granted in part the government’s motion to dismiss on February 26, 2020. The court found that Plaintiffs had standing to seek injunctive relief and that Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory relief are ripe. The court dismissed Plaintiffs’ damages claims against the defendants in their official capacity. Plaintiffs’ FTCA claims for damages survived.

The parties reached an undisclosed monetary settlement in November 2020.

Counsel: ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, ACLU of Montana; Crowley Fleck

Contact: Alex Rate | ACLU of Montana Foundation, Inc. | 406.203.3375 | ratea@aclumontana.org

Additional Links: