Category Archives: Texas

Friends of Ruidosa Church v. Mullin

Posted on by

Friends of the Ruidosa Church, et al. v. Mullin et al, No. 3:26-cv-01099 (W.D. Tex., filed Apr. 16, 2026)

On April 16, 2026, a collective of organizations and individuals including nonprofit Friends of Ruidosa Church, a Big Bend river guide, and the Center for Biological Diversity filed a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to stop border wall construction in the Big Bend region of Texas. The lawsuit was filed in the wake of several others opposing border wall plans in the region, including a related case, Center for Biological Diversity v. CBP.

The plaintiffs allege the Trump administration unconstitutionally waived dozens of environmental laws to fast-track border wall construction through the Big Bend region and exceeded its power granted by Congress. The complaint also alleges that because Congress did not clearly authorize DHS or CBP to create a complete, cross-continental border-length wall, the DHS secretary’s efforts to do so through serial waivers, and particularly the Big Bend Waiver, violates the major questions doctrine and thus the Constitution’s separation of powers principles.

The Big Bend Waiver authorizes large-scale border wall construction along the north bank of the Rio Grande, and will physically block plaintiffs from being able to reach the river at traditional access points. The complaint asserts that plaintiffs, as members of the public and regular users of the river, are beneficiaries of the public trust and have legitimate expectations of continued, reasonable access to the river.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 13, 2026 and a motion for summary judgment on July 17. Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to plaintiffs’ motion on August 7. Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction on August 17, which was granted on October 2.

Documents

Counsel: Texas Civil Rights Project | Center for Biological Diversity

Contact: Laiken Jordahl | Center for Biological Diversity | ljordahl@biologicaldiversity.org

Press

Conserve Big Bend v. DHS

Posted on by

Conserve Big Bend, et al. v. DHS et al., No. 1:26-cv-03198 (D.D.C., filed Sept. 14, 2026)

Six Texas landowners and the nonprofit Conserve Big Bend filed suit in federal district court on September 14, 2026, against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) over the government’s border wall plans for the Big Bend, Texas area.

The coalition of plaintiffs is challenging the Trump administration’s plan to seize private property for U.S.-Mexico border wall construction in several counties in the Big Bend region.

The lawsuit alleges that the DHS Secretary issued federal waivers for the project earlier this year, even though the Big Bend region doesn’t meet the requirements for such waivers in the first place. These waivers determined the Big Bend Sector to be an area of “high illegal entry” for undocumented immigrants. The Big Bend Sector, a 517-mile stretch of the border, saw fewer than 1.5% of the total apprehensions on the entire southwest border over the past five years, according to CBP data.

The determination allowed the agency to unlock expedited construction and bypass dozens of federal environmental, public health, cultural, and historic preservation laws under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). The lawsuit seeks an injunction to stop border wall construction in the entire region, including on steel vehicle barriers and roads inside the Big Bend National Park. The suit also alleges the agency is violating the landowners’ fifth amendment rights to due process.

The landowners’ lawsuit is the latest in a slew of legal battles the federal government is facing over its “Smart Wall,” plans in the Big Bend region which involve the installation of 30-foot-high steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers, patrol roads, lighting, cameras and technology across private, state, and federal lands along the Rio Grande river.

Documents

Counsel: K&L Gates LLP

Press:

FTCA Wrongful Death Administrative Complaint for 8-Year-Old Anadith Danay Reyes Alvarez

Posted on by

Mabel Estanislada Alvarez Benedicks and Rossel Doney Reyes Martinez v. United States of America, No. 1:26-cv-02966 (S.D.N.Y., filed Apr. 10, 2026)

Eight-year-old Anadith was born with sickle cell disease (SCD) and a heart condition. At five years old, she had open heart surgery to repair a heart defect. On May 9, 2023, Anadith’s parents crossed the U.S.-Mexico border with Anadith and her two older siblings—fleeing discrimination and persecution in Honduras as Afro-Indigenous people. Shortly after crossing, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) arrested the family. Anadith’s mother Mabel told a CBP officer about Anadith’s medical condition and provided medical records of her heart defect. Mabel repeated this information upon medical intake. While in CBP custody, Anadith contracted the flu, but CBP did not seek emergency treatment from a doctor, despite her condition. By May 16, 2023, Anadith’s fever reached nearly 105 degrees, but CBP refused Mabel’s request to call an ambulance. On May 17, Anadith and Mabel visited the CBP medical station at least four times—but each time the providers refused to call an ambulance. After the fourth visit, Mabel carried Anadith—who could not walk—and felt the girl die in her arms. Only then did CBP call an ambulance—and refused to allow Mabel to ride with her daughter, instead forcing her to ride in a separate car with CBP. Anadith was pronounced dead at the hospital. In May 2024, the Texas Civil Rights Project and Haitian Bridge Alliance filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to obtain the medical records and other documents related to Anadith while in CBP custody.

On May 1, 2025, Anadith’s parents—Mabel and Rossel—submitted an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) alleging that CBP was negligent and recklessly or intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Anadith and her family. In April 2026, they brought suit in federal court on the same claims. They seek compensation.

Documents:

Counsel: Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ Haitian Bridge Alliance

Contact: Kassandra Gonzalez ǀ Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ kassandra@texascivilrightsproject.org

Press:

Texas Civil Rights Project v. CBP

Posted on by

Texas Civil Rights Project v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:24-cv-00535 (W.D. Tex., filed May 17, 2024)

The Texas Civil Rights Project (TCRP) and Haitian Bridge Alliance filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) failed to respond to administrative requests for information that the organizations filed in October 2023 regarding the death of an 8-year-old girl who died in CBP custody.

Anadith Danay Reyes Alvarez was held for eight days in CBP custody with her family after they crossed into the country at Brownsville. She was in medical isolation at a CBP detention facility in Harlingen, Texas for high fever and the flu when she suffered cardiac arrest and passed away on May 17, 2023. The medical isolation unit at the facility was shut down following her death.

TCRP says CBP failed to respond to a request for expedited processing and explicitly denied their administrative request to produce records regarding the incident. According to the lawsuit, Reyes and her family were members of the Afro-indigenous Garifuna community in Honduras who have suffered an ongoing history of anti-Black and anti-Indigenous discrimination. The family previously fled to Panama for refuge, where Anadith was born, and then subsequently to the United States.

After CBP produced documents responsive to the complaint, TCRP moved to voluntarily dismiss the action.

Documents:

Contact:

Karla Marisol Vargas ǀ Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ KVargas@texascivilrightsproject.org

Press:

Osorio v. Customs and Border Protection

Posted on by

Osorio v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, No. 1:23-cv-03779 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 20, 2023)

Plaintiff Lianet Alvarez Osorio learned that her mother, Idania, had died while in Customs and Border Protection (CBP) custody from a CBP press release issued two weeks after her mother’s passing. Ms. Osorio knew that her mother would be arriving at the border at Eagle Pass, Texas, and processed by CBP on January 2, 2023. The next day, she learned from another woman that her mother had been suffering from chest pains while in CBP custody. For the next two weeks Ms. Osorio frantically sought information about her mother’s whereabouts, only to have a family member call her with news of a press release announcing the death of a woman who matched her mother’s description. Contrary to CBP policy, nobody from CBP personally notified Ms. Osorio. Nor has CBP provided Ms. Osorio with more information about the circumstances of her mother’s death beyond what was included in the press release.

On March 8, 2023, Ms. Osorio filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), seeking records regarding her mother’s death, including any CBP investigation, and information regarding the circumstances of the press release. When CBP failed to timely respond, Ms. Osorio filed suit on December 20, 2023, and subsequently amended her complaint on February 6, 2024.  In her amended complaint, Ms. Osorio alleges that a recent whistleblower complaint to Congress alleging serious mismanagement, understaffing, and incompetence by Loyal Source Government Services – the medical contractor to CBP border facilities – raised more questions about her mother’s death and heightened the need for transparency.

Documents:

Counsel: Al Otro Lado

Contact: Andrew Fels | Al Otro Lado | andrew@alotrolado.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

Madrigales Vasquez, et al., v. United States of America

Posted on by

Madrigales Vasquez, et al., v. United States of America, No. 3:23-cv-5397, (W.D. Wash., filed May 2, 2023)

On February 21, 2021, a family of asylum seekers—two minor children and their parents—entered the United States seeking protection from persecution in Guatemala. After a long and arduous journey on foot and by bus, federal immigration officers arrested the family, dropped them off under an international border bridge near McAllen, Texas, and held the family there for three days, where hundreds of other migrants were similarly being held. 

The family expressed to officers their intention to apply for asylum right away, but officers ignored the family’s vulnerable situation and instead continued to detain them under the bridge in inhumane and unsafe conditions that violated their basic rights and sense of dignity as human beings. 

While held under the bridge, the family lacked adequate access to basic necessities, including food, clothing, shelter, and medical care. They were constantly exposed to the elements and forced to sleep on the bare ground, with hardly any protection from freezing night conditions. For three days, they constantly felt cold, sore, famished, and exhausted. When one of the parents became ill from the conditions, she was denied medical care. Moreover, officers put the family and other asylum seekers at risk of contracting COVID-19 during a time when the vast majority of the United States and world population remained unvaccinated. In the holding area under the bridge, asylum seekers had no access to running water or hygiene items like soap, and social distancing was impossible in the crowded conditions.

During their three days under the bridge, officers refused to provide the family with any explanation regarding their situation, why they were detained, or what was going to happen to them. As a direct result of this unlawful conduct, the family suffered severe physical, mental, and psychological harm. 

On June 21, 2022, the family submitted an administrative claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the government actors who detained them, and on May 2, 2023, they filed a complaint in federal court in the Western District of Washington, where they currently reside. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on August 7, 2023. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on September 22, 2023. On March 28, 2024, the court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, agreeing with the government’s argument that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the FTCA’s discretionary function exception (DFE), given that CBP made a policy decision to address the overburdened and under-resourced situation. The court therefore dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Documents:

Counsel: Northwest Immigrant Rights Project

Contact: Matt Adams | Northwest Immigrant Rights Project | 206.957.8611 | matt@nwirp.org

A.F.P. and J.F.C. v. United States of America

Posted on by

A.F.P. and J.F.C. v. United States of America, No. 1:21-cv-780 (E.D. Cal., filed May 14, 2021)

Plaintiff A.F.P. and his fifteen-year-old son J.F.C., both citizens of Honduras, approached Border Patrol agents near McAllen, Texas to seek asylum. Instead, Border Patrol agents separated J.F.C. from his father and detained both in a holding facility, often referred to as a hielera or “ice box” for its freezing cold temperatures. The hielera was cold and cramped, and the food provided was frozen and expired.

The two were only permitted to speak to each other for 30 minutes per day. Three days after the two were taken into custody, A.F.P. was charged with illegal entry and taken to federal criminal court. During A.F.P.’s court hearing, CBP and ICE officers designated J.F.C. as an unaccompanied minor, transferred his custody to the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) and moved him to a facility in New York. When A.F.P. returned to the detention center, his son was gone. The officers did not advise A.F.P. of the reason or destination of his son’s transfer.

In New York, J.F.C. resided at the Children’s Village facility, where he was not allowed to communicate with his father, was denied medical care, and was subject to emotional abuse. As a result of this neglect, J.F.C. suffers from hearing loss from an untreated ear infection and severe memory problems because of the trauma he experienced.

During this time, A.F.P. was held in ICE detention in Texas, where he had an interview with an asylum officer and was told he had a credible asylum case. After officers at the detention center put A.F.P. in touch with a notary public who led him to believe that pursuing his asylum case would keep him from reuniting with his son, A.F.P. withdrew his asylum application at his hearing in front of an immigration judge. He was then transferred to maximum security prisons and deported a month later. He was separated from his son for almost fifteen months. A human rights organization later helped A.F.P. lawfully re-enter the U.S. and reunite with J.F.C.

Plaintiffs filed suit against the federal government in the Eastern District of California, seeking damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) for intentional infliction of emotional distress, abuse of process, negligence as to family separation, and negligence. Defendant United States moved to dismiss the claims and moved to transfer the case to the Southern District of Texas. On July 11, 2022, the court dismissed Plaintiffs’ negligence cause of action regarding J.F.C.’s time in ORR custody as barred by the independent contractor exception to the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity.  On July 26, 2022, Defendant filed its answer to the remaining claims. As of February 2023, discovery is currently underway.

On December 11, 2023, the court dismissed the case after the parties jointly stipulated to dismiss with prejudice.

Documents:

Counsel: Morgan, Lewis & Bockius L.L.P.

Anibowei v. Morgan

Posted on by

Anibowei v. Morgan, No. 20-10059 (5th Cir., appeal filed Jan. 17, 2020); Anibowei v. Wolf, Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-3495 (N.D. Tex., filed Dec. 23, 2016)

Anibowei filed a lawsuit to challenge the actions of the CBP officers—and the underlying CBP and ICE directives—as violative of the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). He sought damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On February 14, 2019, the court dismissed Anibowei’s claims under Bivens as improperly pled, with leave to replead. On March 14, 2019, Anibowei filed a second amended complaint, and shortly thereafter filed a motion for summary judgment and for a preliminary injunction. On January 14, 2020, the district court denied Anibowei’s motions for partial summary judgment and a preliminary injunction. 

George Anibowei—a U.S. citizen and licensed attorney based in Dallas, Texas—was repeatedly stopped and questioned by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers when returning to the United States from international travel. On several such occasions, CBP officers also searched Anibowei’s cellphone and copied the cellphone’s contents without a warrant. CBP conducted these nonconsensual searches of Anibowei’s cellphone in accordance with CBP and ICE internal directives that permit the search of electronic devices at the border without individualized suspicion.

On January 17, 2020, Anibowei appealed the district court’s decision, asking the Fifth Circuit to rule on whether searching a cellphone without exigent circumstances or a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment, even if said search is conducted at the U.S. border. On December 3, 2020, the Fifth Circuit heard oral argument in this case. On June 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit released its decision affirming the denial of the preliminary injunction, finding that Anibowei did not show a substantial risk of irreparable harm. The court also declined to review the district court’s denial of Anibowei’s motion for summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction, and so did not rule on the question of whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment.

On August 30, 2023, Anibowei filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was denied on January 8, 2024.

Documents

Counsel: Arnold & Porter
Contact: Andrew Tutt | Andrew.tutt@arnoldporter.com

Haitian Bridge Alliance, et al. v. Biden

Posted on by

Haitian Bridge Alliance, et al. v. Biden, et al., No. 1:21-cv-03317 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 20, 2021)

Mirard Joseph is a Haitian man who was whipped by a U.S. Border Patrol agent while attempting to bring food to his family in a Texas migrant encampment. Mr. Joseph alleges his wife received only bread and water and a single diaper for their infant daughter each day—conditions that eventually drove him and others to leave the Del Rio encampment and return to Mexico to buy food. When they attempted to reenter the camp with their purchases, they were met by Border Patrol officers who grabbed Mr. Joseph’s shirt, “lashed at him with reins, attempted to drag him back into the water, and nearly trampled him.”

Mr. Joseph and ten other Haitian nationals held in the temporary Border Patrol camp allege that this mistreatment was part of a discriminatory policy by the Biden administration to target Haitians. Plaintiffs allege that the U.S. government differentially applied the Title 42 process—a summary expulsion process purportedly designed to protect public health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that the government used Title 42 at the Del Rio Port of Entry against Haitian and Haitian-appearing asylum seekers with the purpose of discouraging them from accessing their right to seek asylum. Plaintiffs assert that this Haitian Deterrence Policy diverges from standard practice for asylum seekers and is driven by discriminatory purpose. Despite ample warning that thousands of Haitian migrants were heading toward Del Rio, federal authorities refused to prepare adequate infrastructure to receive them when arrivals started ramping up in September. As a result, a makeshift processing center under the Del Rio International Bridge turned into an encampment, where up to 15,000 people were made to wait for days at a time in temperatures topping 100 degrees without adequate food, water, bedding, or medical attention.Plaintiffs allege that the Haitian Deterrence Policy did not end with mistreatment in Del Rio. After being processed for admission, the U.S. government placed those Haitian asylum seekers in detention, split up families, and shackled and removed them to Haiti without providing the opportunity to request humanitarian protection in the United States. Plaintiff Wilson Doe testified that DHS officers lied and said his family was being transferred to another detention facility when they were actually being expelled pursuant to Title 42. Officers then beat him when he resisted boarding the plane.

Plaintiffs allege violations of the Fifth Amendment due process clause and the Administrative Procedure Act. They also seek certification for a class of all Haitian or presumed Haitian individuals who were denied access to the U.S. asylum process in or around the Del Rio encampment between September 9 and 24, 2021. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the government from subjecting members of the proposed class to the Haitian Deterrence Policy or Title 42 expulsions. They also seek return of those already expelled under Title 42 to allow them to pursue their asylum claims. Plaintiffs filed their complaint on December 20, 2021. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 10, 2022. On June 14, 2022, the court found that the case was not related to Huisha-Huisha and P.J.E.S. v. Wolf and J.B.B.C. v. Wolf, and transferred the case for random reassignment.

On May 12, 2023, the court noted that it understood the Haitian Deterrence Policy to have expired on May 11, 2023, alongside the formal end of the Title 42 Policy, and so ordered plaintiffs to show cause as to why the case was not moot. On June 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed a show cause motion and a supplemental complaint, both of which defendants opposed.  On February 22, 2024, the court issued an oral order at a status conference denying the motion to dismiss and granting plaintiffs’ leave to file an amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint on March 18, 2024, adding new plaintiffs and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy ongoing injuries and to prevent defendants from engaging in similar violations of civil rights in the future. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on May 17, 2024. After briefing concluded, the court held oral argument on August 29, 2024. The parties jointly requested the opportunity to submit supplemental briefing regarding their respective views on 8 U.S.C. 1231(b)(3) and 8 U.S.C. 1231 (United States Policy With Respect to Involuntary Return of Persons in Danger of Subjection to Torture) and how those provisions affect claims made in plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The court granted this request and allowed for a joint supplemental brief on the issue. On March 6, 2026, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, and ordered the parties to confer and file a joint proposed schedule for further proceedings. Defendants then filed their answer to the amended complaint on July 27, 2026. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on August 3. Briefing on the motion is ongoing.

Documents:

Counsel: Innovation Law Lab | Haitian Bridge Alliance | Justice Action Center

Contacts:
Taisha Santil | tsaintil@haitianbridge.org
Tasha Moro | tasha.moro@justiceactioncenter.org
Alex Mensing | alexm@innovationlawlab.org

Press:
● Jennifer Doherty, Class Action Ties Alleged Whipping To Haitian Discrimination, Law 360, Dec. 21, 2021.
● Eileen Sullivan, Haitian Migrants File Lawsuit Protesting Treatment by Border Patrol, The New York Times, Dec. 20, 2021.