In a significant ruling from a federal court in California, a judge has prohibited Border Patrol from apprehending individuals suspected of residing unlawfully in the U.S. without obtaining a warrant, unless there is a valid reason to believe that the person may abscond before it is possible to secure one.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston announced the decision on Tuesday, asserting that Border Patrol agents must have adequate suspicion to detain individuals and cannot forcibly return them to their native countries unless they are made aware of their rights and consent to depart voluntarily. This decision specifically impacts individuals within the Eastern District of California, where numerous individuals were arrested in January following an immigration action termed “Operation Return to Sender” initiated by the Border Patrol.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit against Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Border Patrol leaders on behalf of the United Farm Workers labor union and individuals affected by the raids. The ACLU claimed that over the course of nearly a week, Border Patrol agents unjustly detained people based on their perceived occupation as farmworkers or day laborers, aside from any consideration of their immigration status or individual circumstances. The detainees reportedly faced transportation to the border, detention without access to attorneys or family contact, and coercion into signing documents indicating their waiver of the right to an immigration hearing and voluntary agreement to exit the country.
Judge Thurston remarked that the evidence presented depicted Border Patrol behavior under DHS authority that infringed on well-established constitutional protections. She mandated the Border Patrol to produce a report every 60 days detailing any warrantless detentions or arrests and the rationale behind them until the conclusion of the lawsuit.
Border Patrol’s legal team contested the judge’s jurisdiction over the case, citing federal laws stipulating that immigration matters are appealable only after a final order from an immigration judge. Additionally, they argued the case as moot, attributing it to updated guidance and training provided to Border Patrol agents delineating circumstances for lawful apprehension without warrants and elucidating detainee rights post-arrest.
However, Thurston countered this argument, emphasizing that the new policy does not invalidate the necessity of the lawsuit. She underscored the inadequacy of the policy’s wording to effectively deter illegal detentions and noted the possibility of future modifications weakening protections. The ruling sends a message on the importance of upholding constitutional rights amid immigration enforcement activities.