Federal judge blocks warrantless arrests of suspected illegals by Border Patrol in California

By lauraharris // 2025-05-06

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

A California judge ruled that Border Patrol agents cannot arrest individuals suspected of being in the U.S. illegally without a warrant or evidence that they might flee, reinforcing Fourth Amendment protections.
The ACLU sued DHS and Border Patrol over "Operation Return to Sender," alleging unconstitutional raids targeting Latino communities, with detainees pressured into waiving legal rights.
The court mandated that agents must have "reasonable suspicion" for stops and "probable cause" for warrantless arrests (unless flight risk exists), requiring detailed documentation and bi-monthly reports.
Federal attorneys argued the court lacked jurisdiction, stating immigration cases should follow administrative appeals and that policy updates had already addressed concerns.
Advocates hailed the ruling as a safeguard against racial profiling, while the government warned it could discourage agencies from proactive policy reforms.

A federal judge in California has ruled that U.S. Border Patrol agents cannot arrest individuals suspected of living in the U.S. illegally without a warrant or evidence that the person might flee before one can be obtained. In January, Border Patrol agents arrested dozens of alleged illegal immigrants during their "Operation Return to Sender." Border Patrol agents allegedly conducted "a nearly weeklong sweep through predominantly Latino areas of Kern County and the surrounding region." (Related: ICE begins NATIONWIDE raids targeting criminal illegal immigrants.) In turn, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed the lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Border Patrol officials on behalf of the United Farm Workers union and individuals targeted in the raids. According to the ACLU, agents detained dozens of people, many of them farm workers and day laborers, without proper legal justification, transported them to the border and pressured them into signing documents waiving their right to an immigration hearing. As a response, U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston sided with the ACLU in her April 29 ruling. Thurston, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, ruled that Border Patrol agents in California's Eastern District – the state's largest judicial district – must have "reasonable suspicion" that an individual is in the country unlawfully before conducting a stop and probable cause to make a warrantless arrest unless there is an imminent risk of escape. In her decision, Thurston found that Border Patrol agents had engaged in "conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights." The order imposes strict requirements to ensure compliance with legal standards. First, agents are prohibited from making stops or arrests without reasonable suspicion or probable cause, as mandated by the Fourth Amendment. Second, warrantless arrests are only permitted if there is probable cause to believe the individual will flee before a warrant can be obtained, in accordance with 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). Agents must provide detailed documentation for all warrantless arrests, including a narrative outlining the "particularized facts" that justified the stop. The court requires regular reporting every 60 days on all detentions and arrests to ensure transparency and accountability. These measures aim to prevent further violations of constitutional rights while balancing security concerns.

Government attorneys claim federal court lacks jurisdiction

However, government attorneys argued that the court lacked jurisdiction, citing federal law that typically requires immigration cases to be appealed only after a final order from an immigration judge. They also contended that the lawsuit was moot because Border Patrol had already updated its policies, providing agents with new guidance on warrantless stops and detainee rights. The defense attorneys also argued that rushing full approval is unjustified without ensuring accessibility and public confidence. "The equities do not favor granting Plaintiffs' motion because, again, their claims have been resolved. Indeed, the public interest should favor an agency taking prompt, responsive action in light of a complaint against it. This is a favorable result and granting a preliminary injunction despite such actions would provide little incentive for agencies to take prompt, responsive actions in the future," the defense attorneys said in their opposition on April 7. Visit BorderPatrol.news for more similar stories. Watch the video below about the flood of illegal aliens at the U.S. border.

This video is from the InfoWars channel on Brighteon.com.

CITIZENS NEWS

Government attorneys claim federal court lacks jurisdiction

More related stories: