American Oversight v. CBP

American Oversight v. CBP, No. 1:26-cv-00750 (D.D.C., filed Mar. 4, 2026)

In the wake of high-profile media coverage of excessive use of force by immigration officers, American Oversight filed suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking records related to the agency’s immigration enforcement operations, its legal justification for stops and searches, and its trainings on use of force and the Fourth Amendment.

CBP has faced increased scrutiny since January 2026, when two of its agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old American intensive care nurse for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs in Minneapolis. The lawsuit comes amid mounting concerns about escalating federal immigration enforcement tactics. American Oversight sued the agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), requesting communications sent by former Border Patrol Chief Gregory Bovino during a specified time period, and all communications between Mr. Bovino and the White House during that period. CBP failed to respond to American Oversight’s original FOIA request, and American Oversight subsequently brought this suit to compel the agency to produce the requested records in the interest of public transparency.

Documents

Counsel: American Oversight

Contact: American Oversight ǀ partnerships@americanoversight.org

Conserve Big Bend v. DHS

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:

Escobar Molina v. DHS

Escobar Molina v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 1:25-cv-03417 (D.D.C., filed Sept. 25, 2025)

This litigation challenges the mass immigration arrests in Washington, D.C. conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforce (ICE), U.S. Border Patrol, and other federal agents without warrants or probable cause, of individuals targeted on the basis of their perceived Latino ethnicity. Plaintiffs’ challenge these arrests as a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357. This lawsuit challenges the government’s mass arrest policy as unlawful and arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the policy is unlawful and invalid, an end to warrantless arrests without probable cause, and the expungement of records of unlawful arrests.

Plaintiffs submitted their preliminary injunction motion on October 3, highlighting that 8 U.S.C. § 1357 allows warrantless immigration arrests only if there is probable cause that a person is both unlawfully present and likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained. They argued that the government ignored both of these requirements by using a standard of reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause and made arrests without individualized assessments. Plaintiffs challenge the government’s policy of arresting first and asking questions later, emphasizing the fact that officers arrested individuals without asking about their immigration status or community ties and noting that arrested persons included individuals with legal status or pending asylum claims. Plaintiffs argued that this arrest policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Accardi doctrine.

In its December 2, 2025 memo and opinion granting plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, the court emphasized that immigration violations are civil, not criminal offenses. The court ordered the government to stop its practice of conducting warrantless immigration arrests in Washington, D.C. without an individualized finding as to probable cause of removability and flight risk, highlighting that reasonable suspicion and probable cause are different standards. The court found sufficient evidence that the government’s systematic violation of statutory requirements warranted a preliminary injunction grant. The court provisionally certified an “unassessed escape risk” class consisting of individuals arrested since August 11, 2025 without a warrant and without an individualized pre-arrest determination on likelihood of fleeing.

Defendants appealed this order to the D.C. circuit court on February 2, 2026.

On May 7, 2026, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to enforce, emphasizing that the government cannot rely on the January 28, 2026 Lyons memo to conduct warrantless arrests in Washington, D.C. and allowing plaintiffs to seek evidence from the government on officer training, internal communications, and arrest practices.

Documents

Counsel: Amica Center for Immigrant Rights | ACLU D.C. | ACLU | National Immigration Project | CASA | Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs | Covington & Burling

Contact: Adina Appelbaum | Amica Center for Immigrant Rights | (202) 331-3320 | adina@amicacenter.org

Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology v. CBP

Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, et al., v. CBP, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01732 (D.D.C., filed June 2, 2025)

On August 1, 2024, Plaintiffs Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology, Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, and Americans for Immigrant Justice submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to defendants Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) seeking records related to the agencies’ policies and practices on the collection and use of noncitizen DNA. The agencies failed to make a determination on the FOIA requests and failed to produce the responsive records within the time prescribed by FOIA, leading plaintiffs to file suit on June 2, 2025.

The lawsuit comes amid a widespread immigration crackdown by the administration and increased surveillance efforts. Plaintiff organizations allege that the agencies have not been transparent about their rapidly-expanding program of genetic data collection from migrants, including children. The suit expresses mounting concerns about both the scale and lack of oversight of DNA collection practices. Defendants filed their answer to the complaint on August 20, 2025. The court subsequently ordered the parties to meet and confer and to file a joint status report proposing a schedule for defendants’ processing of responsive records. As of September 2026, production is ongoing and the parties continue to file periodic status reports with the court.

Documents:

Counsel: Amica Center for Immigrant Rights ǀ Georgetown University Law Center ǀ Americans for Immigrant Justice

Contact: Amelia Dagen ǀ Amica Center for Immigrant Rights ǀ amelia@amicacenter.org
Stevie Glaberson ǀ Georgetown University Law Center ǀ stephanie.glaberson@georgetown.edu

Press:

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

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.

On December 23, 2025, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and plaintiffs filed their opposition. Plaintiffs’ motion to strike the summary judgment motion was denied on January 9, 2026, on the basis that a party may file such motion at any time until 30 days after the close of discovery. Defendants have until March 27, 2026, to file a brief replying to plaintiff’s opposition to their motion for summary judgment and motion for discovery.  

On May 18, 2026, the D.C. District Court issued a memorandum granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiffs’ motions for class certification and discovery. The court concluded that Plaintiffs are not entitled to discovery before summary judgment in this case.

In its opinion, the court rejected the Plaintiffs’ claims that Defendants maintain a policy or practice of violating FOIA’s timelines, citing to the extraordinary increase in FOIA requests received by CBP annually, existing backlogs, and the agency’s efforts to improve processing. The court found that the expanding backlog did not prove mismanagement or FOIA policy noncompliance. The opinion emphasized that FOIA requires due diligence from agencies, but due diligence does not require agencies to adopt every possible measure to reduce delays. However, the court did note that prolonged and unexplained delays can constitute a policy or practice in violation under FOIA, but emphasized that the ultimate availability of injunctive relief turns on fact-specific analysis of the reasons for delays and the agency’s efforts to ameliorate those delays.

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

American Immigration Council v. CBP and DHS

American Immigration Council v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 1:21-cv-03314 (D.D.C., filed Dec. 20, 2021)

The American Immigration Council filed suit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in December 2021 for their failure to respond to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking records related to the agency’s implementation and use of the CBP One mobile application. CBP developed CBP One to collect information about individuals who interact with CBP, and launched the app in 2020. Since that time, CBP has added different functions to the app, including allowing asylum seekers to schedule inspection appointments via the app. However, apart from limited information available on its website, CBP has failed to provide easily accessible and consistent information to the public about CBP One, including other current or future uses for the app and any plans to use, sell, or distribute the information it collects through the app.

In September 2023, CBP agreed to publish past versions of the Department of Homeland Security’s Privacy Impact Assessments on CBP One. The assessments describe additional app features not listed on the CBP webpage. CBP agreed to post these assessments, which provide vital insight on the functions of the app, in the agency’s FOIA library. Agencies’ FOIA libraries—or Reading Rooms—are designated webpages where the public can view agency documents without the need to file a request under FOIA.

Documents:

Counsel:

Raul Pinto ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org

American Immigration Council v. ICE

American Immigration Council v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00975 (D.D.C., filed Apr. 5, 2024)

The American Immigration Council (AIC) filed a lawsuit against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking to compel the agencies to release records relating to implementation of Family Expedited Removal Management (FERM), a border management program announced in May 2023.

Under FERM, ICE places heads of households of asylum-seeking families detained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection at the U.S.-Mexico border under surveillance with ankle monitors and under curfew. The alternative to detention program only applies to certain nationalities and is active only in certain cities throughout the country.

ICE has said that the FERM program ensures families show up at credible fear interviews, which serve as asylum screening interviews, but advocates have seen that families enrolled in the program face rapid removals. Complaints suggest that families enrolled in the FERM program often lack legal representation during their credible fear interviews. If the families fail the credible fear interview, ICE moves to remove them without the opportunity of ever seeing an immigration judge to assess their claims.

Since its inception, ICE has continued to expand the FERM program. Initially, ICE announced that the FERM program would be active in four cities. As of December 2023, the program was active in 45 cities nation-wide. 

AIC and the American Immigration Lawyers Association originally filed requests under FOIA with ICE and CBP on November 21, 2023, to find out more about the program. The requests sought more specific information on the criteria the agencies use to enroll families in the FERM program, including the list of nationalities who may be subject to FERM and the cities where it operates. The organizations also requested the information given to families about the program, including information about access to legal representation. The requests also asked the agencies to produce demographic data on the families placed in FERM. 

Neither ICE nor CBP responded to the initial request, and AIC filed this lawsuit to compel disclosure. CBP filed an answer, and made productions. The parties subsequently settled the matter.

Documents:

Counsel: American Immigration Council

Contact: Raul A. Pinto ǀ American Immigration Council ǀ rpinto@immcouncil.org

Press: Council Files Lawsuit to Get Records about Program that Monitors Families Seeking Asylum, American Immigration Council, Apr. 5, 2024.

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., No. 1:24-cv-01702 (D.D.C., filed June 12, 2024)

Two immigrant rights groups filed suit against the Biden administration, challenging a June 4, 2024, Interim Final Rule and accompanying Implementation Guidance that categorically exclude an entire group of asylum seekers from access to that protection because of where they entered the country, directly contrary to Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the Rule, which incorporates a June 3, 2024, Presidential Proclamation, noncitizens arriving between ports of entry at the southern border are, with extremely limited exceptions, categorically ineligible for asylum whenever a rolling seven-day average of the number of daily “encounters” of inadmissible noncitizens exceeds a certain numerical threshold. The complaint argues that these executive actions will effectively shut off any access to asylum protections for the vast majority of people arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border, no matter how strong their claims. The proclamation echoes the Trump administration’s previous asylum entry ban, which immigrants’ rights advocates successfully challenged.

The lawsuit alleges that the ban, which allows asylum access only for people who can secure a scarce appointment to present themselves at a port of entry or satisfy a very narrow exception, is flatly inconsistent with the asylum statute that Congress enacted, which permits migrants to apply for asylum whether or not they enter at a port of entry. In addition to barring asylum for most migrants, the new rules and procedures also create potentially insurmountable obstacles for seeking other types of protection by imposing new, unlawful regulations governing how arriving noncitizens are screened to determine whether they are eligible for withholding of removal or protection under the Convention Against Torture and providing only four hours to consult with an attorney before those screenings.

Las Americas Immigrant Advocacy Center and Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services filed the complaint on June 12, 2024, in the D.C. District Court. Plaintiffs filed the amended complaint on July 12, 2024. Cross motions for summary judgment are now fully briefed. Separately, Texas filed a motion with the court to intervene as a defendant in the case.

Following the finalization of the Interim Final Rule on September 30, 2024, the government argued that Plaintiffs’ claims are now moot. Subsequently, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on November 1, 2024, as well as a supplemental brief for summary judgment on November 15, 2024.

On May 9, 2025, the district court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and similarly granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The court vacated the limitation on asylum eligibility as contrary to law, the manifestation of fear requirement as arbitrary and capricious, and the Guidance providing asylum seekers only 4 hours to consult with an attorney before a CFI as arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the reasonable probability standard.   

Documents:

Counsel: ACLU Immigrant Rights Project ǀ ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia ǀ Jenner & Block LLP ǀ National Immigrant Justice Center ǀ Texas Civil Rights Project ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies

Contact: Lee Gelernt ǀ ACLU Immigrant Rights Project ǀ lgelernt@aclu.org
Keren Zwick ǀ National Immigrant Justice Center ǀ kzwick@immigrantjustice.org
Melissa Crow ǀ Center for Gender & Refugee Studies ǀ crowmelissa@uclawsf.edu

Press:

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf and J.B.B.C. v. Wolf

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-02245 (D.D.C., filed Aug. 14, 2020)
J.B.B.C. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-01509 (D.D.C., filed June 9, 2020)

A recent series of cases have challenged the government’s invocation of rarely-used public health laws to restrict immigration by unaccompanied children and asylum seekers.

On March 20, 2020, President Trump announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would issue an order “to suspend the introduction of all individuals seeking to enter the U.S. without proper travel documentation” across the northern and southern borders. Would-be border crossers were to be “immediately return[ed]” to their country of origin “without delay.” To justify the order, the Administration invoked 42 U.S.C. § 265, a rarely-used provision dating back to 1893, which gives federal public-health authorities the ability to “prohibit . . . the introduction of persons or property” from designated places where “by reason of the existence of any communicable disease in a foreign country there is serious danger of the introduction of such disease into the United States.” This restriction has come to be known as “Title 42.”

On March 20, 2020, CDC issued an interim final rule and an order directing the “immediate suspension of the introduction” of certain persons, including those seeking to enter the United States at ports of entry “who do not have proper travel documents,” “whose entry is otherwise contrary to law,” and “apprehended near the border seeking to unlawfully enter the United States.” Reports indicate that although CDC objected to the order, saying that there was no valid public-health justification for it, White House officials overrode those objections. Though CDC initially limited the order to thirty days, it has since extended the order indefinitely. On October 13, CDC issued final rules concerning its regulatory authority under § 265. CDC then issued a revised order pursuant to those rules. In February 2021, the Biden administration called for a review of the CDC order to determine if it was still needed or if modifications should be made, but on August 2, 2021, CDC issued a new order once again indefinitely extending application of Title 42.

The CDC order and regulations apply to unaccompanied children (who are entitled to special safeguards under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPRA)) and people seeking asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture. The ACLU, along with a number of ally organizations, have filed a series of lawsuits on behalf of unaccompanied children challenging their expulsion under the CDC’s directives, the two most significant of which are discussed below.

J.B.B.C.

J.B.B.C. v. Wolf challenged the unlawful expulsion of a sixteen-year-old Honduran boy pursuant to Title 42. J.B.B.C. was being held in a hotel awaiting expulsion when the ACLU and others filed a complaint and request for a temporary restraining order. Based on J.B.B.C.’s arguments that the Title 42 Process was not authorized by § 265, and that the CDC order conflicted with various Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) provisions, Judge Carl Nichols issued a preliminary injunction barring Defendants from expelling J.B.B.C. Defendants then voluntarily took J.B.B.C. out of the Title 42 Process and transferred him to Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) custody.

Another child similarly subject to expulsion under Title 42, E.Y., was later amended into the case. Hours after he was added, Defendants similarly took him out of the Title 42 Process. Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed J.B.B.C.

P.J.E.S.

On August 14, 2020, the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, the ACLU of Texas, the Texas Civil Rights Project, Oxfam America, and the ACLU Foundation of the District of Columbia filed P.J.E.S. v. Wolf, a nationwide class action challenging the application of the Title 42 Process to unaccompanied children. On August 20, 2020, Plaintiffs moved for a classwide preliminary injunction. The district court judge then referred the case to a magistrate judge, who issued a report recommending that Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification be provisionally granted and that the motion for classwide preliminary injunction be granted. The magistrate judge concluded that Title 42 does not authorize summary expulsions and that if it were in fact read to permit expulsion of unaccompanied minors, it would conflict with statutory rights granted to them under the TVPRA and the INA.

On November 18, 2020, the court adopted the report, provisionally granting Plaintiffs’ motion to certify class and motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants moved for reconsideration on their request to stay the preliminary injunction and appealed the order to the DC Circuit. On December 3, the court denied Defendants’ motion for reconsideration.

On December 12, 2020, Defendants filed a notice advising the court that approximately 34 class members had been expelled from the United States, in contravention of the court’s injunction. These 34 were in addition to another 32 unaccompanied children expelled the same day the court granted the preliminary injunction.

On January 29, 2021, a motions panel of the D.C. Circuit stayed the P.J.E.S. preliminary injunction pending appeal and expedited the appeal.

In February 2021, CDC published a Notice of Temporary Exception from Expulsion of Unaccompanied Noncitizen Children under Title 42, and on July 16, 2021, CDC issued an order formally excepting unaccompanied minors from Title 42.  

On March 2, 2021, the Court of Appeals issued an order holding Defendants’ appeal of the preliminary injunction in abeyance pending further order of the court. The district court likewise granted the parties’ joint motion to hold the case in abeyance. On October 17, 2022, the D.C. Circuit issued an order terminating the abeyance, vacating the preliminary injunction, and remanded the case to the district court for a determination of whether all or part of the case has become moot. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot on November 22, 2022. The court ordered the motion to dismiss held in abeyance on January 25, 2023. On November 6, 2023, Plaintiff stipulated to dismissal of the case.

Note: Two other cases involving the treatment of unaccompanied minors under Title 42 include G.Y.J.P. v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-01511 (D.D.C., filed June 9, 2020) and Texas Civil Rights Project v. Wolf, No. 1:20-cv-02035 (D.D.C., filed July 24, 2020).

Documents:

J.B.B.C. v. Wolf:

P.J.E.S. v. Wolf:

Press:

FOIA: Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. CBP

FOIA: Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Customs & Border Protection, No. 1:22-cv-00496-TSC (D.D.C., filed Mar. 2, 2022)

In October 2021, the chief records officer of the National Archives and Records Administration, Laurence Brewer, wrote a letter to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials expressing concern about CBP’s use of Wickr, an Amazon-owned encrypted messaging platform known for its ability to automatically delete messages, which then become unrecoverable after a predetermined period of time. In the letter, Brewer wrote that he was “concerned about agencywide deployment of a messaging application that has this functionality without appropriate policies and procedures governing its use.” Public records have revealed that CBP – which has been widely criticized for its secrecy – has spent more than $1.6 million on Wickr since 2020 and is using the platform across all CBP components. However, little is known about how the agency has deployed the app. Its auto-deletion feature, in particular, has raised concern among both government record keepers and advocates, who worry that Wickr allows CBP officials to sidestep government transparency requirements and litigation obligations, especially considering the agency’s poor track record in complying with record-keeping laws.

In September 2021, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to CBP, seeking all records and communications relating to CBP’s use of Wickr for official agency business. After CBP failed to respond to the request, CREW filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that CBP is violating the FOIA and injunctive relief requiring CBP to immediately process and release the requested records. On April 7, 2022, Defendant filed its answer. The parties filed periodic joint status reports while production was ongoing. On May 2, 2024, the parties stipulated to dismissal.

Documents:
● Complaint
● Answer

Counsel: The George Washington University Law School Jacob Burns Community Legal Clinics; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington

Contact:
Jeffrey Gutman | The George Washington University Law School | jgutman@law.gwu.edu
Nikhel Sus | Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington | nsus@citizensforethics.org

Press:
● Joseph Cox, Customs and Border Protection to Use Encrypted App Wickr Widely, Vice, Sept. 28, 2021.
● Ben Goggin and Louise Matsakis, Border Patrol’s Use of Amazon’s Wickr Messaging App Draws Scrutiny, NBC News, Apr. 3, 2022.
● CREW Submits FOIA Request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection Regarding Use of Wickr, CREW, Mar. 9, 2022.
● CREW Sues for Records on CBP Contract with Wickr, “Auto-Burn” Encrypted Messaging App, CREW, Mar. 2, 2022.