A federal judge has ruled that Border Patrol agents violated a court order by continuing to make illegal stops and arrests in California. The decision, unsealed on Thursday, found that agents detained people without reasonable suspicion, relying on broad assumptions about day laborers instead of specific evidence of immigration violations.
Judge Jennifer Thurston of the Eastern District of California granted a motion from the United Farm Workers to enforce a preliminary injunction she issued last year. This injunction barred Border Patrol agents from detaining people in California’s Central Valley without documenting specific facts and reasoning for the stops. The judge emphasized that agents cannot detain individuals based on their appearance or occupation without proper justification.
The case centers on a July 2025 operation in Sacramento, where agents detained a group of day laborers at a Home Depot parking lot, arresting 11 noncitizens and one U.S. citizen. The judge ruled that this operation violated her previous order, which prohibited warrantless arrests without assessing if a person is a flight risk.
The federal government argued that the operation was based on surveillance and intelligence, but the judge found their documentation inadequate. Reports were nearly identical and lacked individualized details, with some containing inaccuracies. Thurston highlighted that the Supreme Court has not approved such stops without reasonable suspicion, despite a recent ruling allowing a temporary restraining order to be paused.
Judge Thurston, appointed by President Biden, did not mandate additional training for agents but expects immediate compliance with her order. The ruling was sealed for 14 days to redact personal and sensitive information.
The decision has been praised by organizations like the ACLU of Northern California, which represented the plaintiffs. United Farm Workers President Teresa Romero stated, “The court made clear that Border Patrol’s raid on day laborers in Sacramento was unconstitutional.” Legal experts suggest that continued non-compliance could lead to increased penalties, including criminal contempt charges.
Recent Comments