Jared

@jaredmcclain.bsky.social

2162 Followers 1062 Following

Civil Rights Lawyer “Crusading against government officials and the immunity doctrines that protect them." -St. Tammany Parrish Sheriff's Office Contractually obligated to say that my opinions are my own

(i) QUESTION PRESENTED The "touchstone of the constitutional inquiry under the Excessive Fines Clause" is that the amount of the fine "must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish." United States v. Ba-jakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998). Below, the Alaska Supreme Court upheld the forfeiture of petitioner's $95,000 airplane because, the court reasoned, petitioner knew that one of his passenger's grocery bags contained a six-pack of Budweiser. In so holding, the court captured vividly a lower-court conflict over the standard for evaluating the gravity of a property owner's offense under the Excessive Fines Clause. Aligning with the Eleventh Cireuit, the Alaska Supreme Court examined the gravity of the defendant's offense at a stratospheric level of abstraction. Meanwhile, the federal circuit in which Alaska sits-in line with many other state and federal courts—holds that "[ilt is critical" to "review the specific actions of the violator rather than by taking an abstract view of the violation." The question presented is whether, in determining whether a fine contravenes the Excessive Fines Clause, courts may consider the gravity of the underlying offense purely in the abstract or should consider the gravity of the specific defendant's wrongdoing.
Court steps interview after the preliminary injunction hearing in Garcia Venegas v. Homan
A. Plaintiff has sufficiently established the DHS policies exist According to the Government, Plaintit has not shown that he faces an imminent injury from any policy, pattern or practice implemented by the Federal Defendants" because "no such policies exist." (Doc. 46). For support, the government relies on the Declaration of Philip Lavoie (Docs. 44-1). (Id.) In response, Plaintit argues the policies exist based on Plaintitt's declarations deschoine nis two previous encounters with uns and the encounters or two orners ne personally witnessed. Plaintiff has also relied on public statements, news reports, and declarations. To show an actionable "policy, pattern, or practice," plaintiffs must identify conduct that is systemic and widespread, not merely the result of isolated or sporadic incidents. Thus, to establish standing, Plaintiff must show that the policy, in tact, exists and that it requires federal Otcials to take the challenged actions. The Court is not compelled by the Government's position that no policies exist tor several reasons. First, treating the allegations in the Complaint as true, it is beyond question that Plaintiff has alleged the three subiect policies exist. Plaintiff has additionally put forth factual support that the policies exist. Second, a declaraton, like the one submitted by the Government, does not - at this stage-override what a olaint has clearly alleged. Ihird. even it the decaranon were dispositive, the Court is unsatisfied that it conclusively negates that such policies exist. Rather, at best, Mr. Lavoie has contrmed he is not aware or such policies. Fourth in addition to the court's determination that the Government's supporting documentation is not compelling, the Court also finds that the totality of Plaintiff's supporting documentation when considered along with the well pled allegations of the Complaint, support the conclusion that the policies exist for purposes of Article III standing.
5-50-67.2. Thus, Alcocer's possession of a Georgia driver's license-even a suspended one-created a presumption of legal status, whether as an authorized alien or a U.S. citizen. As to her possession of a Social Security number, under federal law, a person is eligible for that only if she is a U.S. citizen or an alien otherwise lawfully present in the United States. See, e.g., 20 C.F.R. §§ 422.104, 422.107. And if not a citizen, a person requires legal status for employment in this country. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1324a.z
Leo with his legs shackled in the back of a DHS vehicle
Leo, shackled around the legs, in the back of an ICE vehicle
Photo of Leo being led by five ICE agents into the back of an unmarked ICE vehicle. His hands are cuffed behind his back and he’s in leg shackles.
George Retes, Benny Johnson, Marimar Martinez, and Ryan Ecklund posing for a picture after the hearing
The Volokh Conspiracy Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent About The Volokh Conspiracy • SUPREME COURT Court Leaks and Attorney-Journalists The professional-ethics implications of making court confidences public. STEPHEN E. SACHS |4.20.20264:11 PM The recent leak of internal Supreme Court memoranda to the New York Times, discussed earlier by Jonathan Adler and Josh Blackman-as well as by Will Baude and Jack Goldsmith elsewhere-was plainly a serious violation of the Court's confidentiality obligations. But it may also reflect serious legal-ethics violations by one of the Times article's coauthors, Adam Liptak, whom I understand to be a licensed attorney in New York and subject to that state's Rules of Professional Conduct.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL MOTION TO DISMISS (Doc. 63) filed by the STATE OF ALABAMA, by and through the OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, is hereby GRANTED based on the following: A detailed analysis or bench brief of this matter was prepared by the trial court's intern from the University of North Alabama, who was subsequently hired by the trial court as a Clerical Aid, namely Will Calhoun, and Mr. Calhoun s bench brief is hereby incorporated by reference as if set out in full herein (Court Ex. "A," filed concurrently with this Order). 2. Mr. Calhoun's legal analysis covers both search and seizure issues, as well as the immunity doctrine, both at issue here. 3. Mr. Calhoun begins his study of law at the University of Alabama School of Law this fall, August 2026. BASED ON THE FOREGOING, this matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Costs taxed to the Plaintiffs, and any other pending motions are either MOOT or otherwise DISMISSED; thereby making this ORDER OF DISMISSIAL a FINAL ORDER.
10. Plaintiffs Speak to the Media: October 2023 In mid-October 2023, Mr. Benoir and Ms. Bastien began speaking with mem- bers of the news media about their view that the town should repeal the Food Truck Ban or otherwise work something out with them before their annual business license was scheduled to expire in May 2024. Bastien Decl. ¶ 73; Benoir Decl. ¶ 77. This resulted in news coverage on October 19, 2023, and subsequent dates. Pl. Mem. Supp. Ex. 35 ¶¶ 12–13, ECF No. 59-35 (“Monel Decl.”); Pl. Mem. Supp. Ex. 20, ECF No. 59- 20. Mayor Russell stated that the media coverage had “upset [his] little town[.]” Pl. Mem. Supp. Ex. 10 at 44:08–09, ECF No. 59-10. Mayor Russell also testified that he blamed Plaintiffs’ counsel, the non-profit Institute for Justice, for helping Plaintiffs obtain media attention that was unfavorable to the town. Id. at 94:18–95:09. Mayor Russell further stated that the Institute for Justice: [T]ook this little simple thing and blew it up into a gigantic story that was all over the internet, all over the newspapers, and you guys did it. You sent it out. You CC’d it to everybody. You are the ones that promoted this. If you hadn’t got involved in this, we would have worked out some- thing with these poor people and they would be selling hotdogs right now. But you guys were the ones who promoted all this hate and discon- tent and dissatisfaction. The Institute for Justice did that. Id. at 98:12–24 (cleaned up). In Mayor Russell’s view, the media attention that the Institute for Justice helped Plaintiffs obtain was like a “atom bomb” that cost Parks- ley its reputation. Id. at 56:03–04, 96:20–21.
Reporters Sherry Digmon and Don Fletcher sitting at a wooden table in the Atmore News’ office, with copies of their newspapers detailing their own arrests
-5- During his remarks, Petersen referred to Mayor Hansen and Chief Burdess as “fascists” who “need to be removed from power.” Id. at 114. Mayor Hansen immediately gaveled him down and warned Petersen not to “address the chief of police in that manner.” [ECF No. 27-4 at 53]. When Petersen reiterated his criticism, Mayor Hansen suspended the meeting and ordered him to leave the chambers. Id. As Petersen walked toward the exit in apparent compliance, Lieutenant Christopher Wing intercepted him at the door and arrested him for disorderly conduct. [ECF No. 27-2 at 630]. When Petersen protested that he was attempting to leave as directed, Wing placed him in handcuffs and served him with a 24-hour no-trespass order. [ECF No. 27-4 at 54]. After the arrest, Mayor Hansen addressed the remaining audience members and instructed them to “go do your activism somewhere where somebody cares” rather than at city council meetings.2 Id. The criminal complaint filed against Petersen explicitly stated he was arrested for “speaking negatively towards the Mayor of Newton and the Police Chief.” [ECF No. 27-5 at 35].
INTRODUCTION Defendants filed two motions to dismiss some of Leo's claims. This brief deals with the Partial Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's APA claims (ECF 57). Because Defendants scantly mention the merits, this brief mostly focuses on Leo's ability to seek relief from three Department of Homeland Security policies that allow immigration officers to raid Leo's worksites without a warrant, detain him without particularized suspicion, and continue to hold him after he dispelled any doubt about his lawful presence. This Court should deny the motion to ensure that innocent U.S. citizens like Leo can work in the construction industry without fear that the federal government will treat them like criminals.
Prayer for relief from the case: https://www.aclu.org/documents/rodriguez-et-al-v-porter-et-al-class-action-complaint
Facebook post from FBI Mobile's office listing all the agencies enforcing immigration laws in Alabama, and noting that only 4 of the 19 people arrested that day had "prior criminal histories."
Ilan Wurman, looking like a dead-eyed weasel, announcing his podcast named for another terrible legal pun
Adobe Acrobat with two AI Assistant popups covering half the PDF and two other prominent buttons to use the AI assistant.
May 13, 2025, started like any ordinary day for Amber and Nathan Miller's sixteen-year-old son L.M., whose name is withheld because he is a minor. L.M. attends Deering High School, where it's common for students to leave campus to get lunch. As he was walking down a sidewalk to join his friends to drive to McDonald's for lunch, a team of police in SWAT tactical gear carrying rifles rounded the corner behind him.
Alisa Carr and Avery Marshall standing in front of their home with a gray Nissan parked out front.
"I find it breathtaking that I have been compelled on the evidence to find the conduct of such high-level officers of our government - cabinet secretaries — conspired to infringe the First Amendment rights of people with such rights here in the United States," Young said. "These cabinet secretaries have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution."
HSI agent in a brown tactical vest, white T-shirt, and Vans running onto a construction site past a Job Box posted with a No Trespassing sign
Nearly finished house in Fair Hope, Alabama, that officers entered without a warrant on June 12 to arrest Leonardo Garcia Venegas
In response to this motion, Defendants argue that they don’t need warrants for construction sites because they’re “open fields.” They also admit that officers went to Leo’s site with no idea who they’d find, let alone particularized suspicion. And they admit that they kept Leo in handcuffs after seeing his REAL ID because, they say, states can issue REAL IDs to illegal aliens. But that’s simply false. And the Secretary of Homeland Security, a Defendant here, should know better since her agency administers the REAL ID program. Unable to refute the policies’ existence, Defendants feebly question Leo’s standing and warn that an injunction would imperil immigration enforcement. They suggest that requiring immigration officers to get warrants to search private worksites and to detain only those people for whom they have particularized suspicion—two basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment—would “curtail[] every on-the-ground immigration search and detention” and “chill routine field operations.” Defs.’ Br. Opp. PI (ECF No. 46) 2–3, 28 (“PIOpp.”). But Leo does not question the federal government’s broad authority over immigration, just three lawless policies. That those policies have become so “routine” is exactly why an injunction is necessary. American citizens like Leo must be free to work without living in constant fear that they’ll be wrongfully detained based on how they look.
The lawyers who called Scott Greaney this fall seemed to him to make a good point. The women, the 61-year-old turkey farmer from Mercer said, told him that two seats on a state committee overseeing funds meant to support Maine farmers, loggers and others were reserved by statute for people representing “historically underserved racial populations.” “At face value,” Greaney said in an interview via telephone Monday, “the whole thing about reserving two seats for specific types of people — that ain’t right.” So he agreed to help the lawyers, who wanted to challenge whether that was constitutional. But what Greaney did not realize was that he was signing on to be the sole plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed Friday against two state officials — and that the national, libertarian-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation would issue a Friday evening press release that Greaney says was misleading. “I have no use for liars and no use for thieves,” Greaney said. “I don’t know what this is all about. I was planning on calling (the lawyers) today and saying, ‘What the hell is this?’ I’m trying to run a business in the state of Maine, and it has me looking like a punk.”
Similarly, while ICE has no record of the June 12 encounter, if this brief—no longer than thirty-minute police-citizen [Doc. 1, PageID.26, ¶152] encounter—occurred, then the Federal Defendants had a reasonable suspicion to detain him. [Doc. 44-1, PageID.469, ¶15]. This authority is rooted in the HSI Special Agents’ training and experience and immigration authority. Kavanaugh, J., concurring in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25A169, 2025 WL 2585637, at *3 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2025) (granting stay) (“Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings”). Thus, Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits and this Court should deny his request for a Preliminary Injunction. The Federal Defendants conducted a lawful general immigration enforcement and lawful detention(s).
235. A REAL. ID is presumptive proof of citizenship. 236. Evidence of lawful status like a REAL ID negates even reasonable suspicion-and especially negates whatever suspicion could be created through DHS's generalized profile of undocumented construction workers. 237. When an officer seizes someone based only (or even mostly) on their demographic profile, it should not take much counter-evidence to dispel the suspicion. A REAL. ID is more than enough. 238. DHS certifies that REAL IDs comply with the REAL ID Act, which provides that the federal government will accept licenses as REAL. IDs only if a state verifies an applicant's citizenship or immigration status before issuing the license. 239. Duly promulgated federal regulations also establish that a state-issued REAL. ID has been certified as complying with the REAL ID Act, 6 C.F.R. § 37.3, which includes security features for IDs to prevent forgery, id. $5 37.15, 37.17, and a requirement that IDs be issued only to applicants who provide evidence of lawful status, id. § 37.11, after the state verifies their documents, id. $ 37.13. 240. REAL. IDs must also include barcodes to make them machine-readable. 6C.E.R. $ 37.19. 241. DHS certifies which licenses are REAL-ID-compliant and requires that any non-compliant IDs must have a unique design or color to distinguish them from REAL IDs and must clearly state that the card is not acceptable for official purposes. 6 C.FR. § 37.71. 242. Despite these regulations certifying the authenticity of REAL. IDs, requiring that they are issued only to people with legal status, and making it easy for officers to tell if a license is not REAL-ID compliant, DHS's continued detention policy does not recognize REAL. IDs as strong evidence of legal status. 243. The policy authorizes immigration officers to ignore the verification process that DHS has already completed in order to continue detaining workers with a REAL ID or other evidence that they are authorized to work.
The Continued Detention Policy authorizes the very type of seizures that Alcocer forbids-but at scale. Many of these seizures turn into arrests that exceed the officers' power under 8 C.FR. § 287.8(c)(2) (i)-(ii). Under the policy, immigration officers can detain workers-initially seized on the premise that they are undocumented-even after workers show proof of citizenship or lawful presence. Supra pp 11-12. It happened to Leo twice. Both times, officers had his driver's license in hand within minutes. Supra pp. 5-6. Alabama issues licenses only to citizens or those who are lawfully present, Ala. Code § 31-13-29(c) (1), (g), specifically "to discourage illegal immigration within the state and maximize enforcement of federal immigration laws through cooperation with federal authorities." United States v. Alabama, 691 F3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, Leo was "entitled to the presumption that he... [was] lawfully present." Ala. Code § 31-13- 3(11). Leo's license also has a star in the corner, which he could obtain only with the documents DHS certifies are compliant with the federal REAL ID Act. 6 C.ER. § 37.71.5 Under that Act, a REAL ID "suffice[s] to establish lawful presence." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 449 n.1 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring in part).
The Continued Detention Policy authorizes the very type of seizures that Alcocer forbids-but at scale. Many of these seizures turn into arrests that exceed the officers' power under 8 C.FR. § 287.8(c)(2) (i)-(ii). Under the policy, immigration officers can detain workers-initially seized on the premise that they are undocumented-even after workers show proof of citizenship or lawful presence. Supra pp 11-12. It happened to Leo twice. Both times, officers had his driver's license in hand within minutes. Supra pp. 5-6. Alabama issues licenses only to citizens or those who are lawfully present, Ala. Code § 31-13-29(c) (1), (g), specifically "to discourage illegal immigration within the state and maximize enforcement of federal immigration laws through cooperation with federal authorities." United States v. Alabama, 691 F3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, Leo was "entitled to the presumption that he... [was] lawfully present." Ala. Code § 31-13- 3(11). Leo's license also has a star in the corner, which he could obtain only with the documents DHS certifies are compliant with the federal REAL ID Act. 6 C.ER. § 37.71.5 Under that Act, a REAL ID "suffice[s] to establish lawful presence." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 449 n.1 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring in part).
235. A REAL. ID is presumptive proof of citizenship. 236. Evidence of lawful status like a REAL ID negates even reasonable suspicion-and especially negates whatever suspicion could be created through DHS's generalized profile of undocumented construction workers. 237. When an officer seizes someone based only (or even mostly) on their demographic profile, it should not take much counter-evidence to dispel the suspicion. A REAL. ID is more than enough. 238. DHS certifies that REAL IDs comply with the REAL ID Act, which provides that the federal government will accept licenses as REAL. IDs only if a state verifies an applicant's citizenship or immigration status before issuing the license. 239. Duly promulgated federal regulations also establish that a state-issued REAL. ID has been certified as complying with the REAL ID Act, 6 C.F.R. § 37.3, which includes security features for IDs to prevent forgery, id. $5 37.15, 37.17, and a requirement that IDs be issued only to applicants who provide evidence of lawful status, id. § 37.11, after the state verifies their documents, id. $ 37.13. 240. REAL. IDs must also include barcodes to make them machine-readable. 6C.E.R. $ 37.19. 241. DHS certifies which licenses are REAL-ID-compliant and requires that any non-compliant IDs must have a unique design or color to distinguish them from REAL IDs and must clearly state that the card is not acceptable for official purposes. 6 C.FR. § 37.71. 242. Despite these regulations certifying the authenticity of REAL. IDs, requiring that they are issued only to people with legal status, and making it easy for officers to tell if a license is not REAL-ID compliant, DHS's continued detention policy does not recognize REAL. IDs as strong evidence of legal status. 243. The policy authorizes immigration officers to ignore the verification process that DHS has already completed in order to continue detaining workers with a REAL ID or other evidence that they are authorized to work.
16. Only after being cuffed, Plaintiff stated that he had identification in his pocket. He was then brought to stand by the government vehicles. A subsequent search of his pocket by the HSI Special Agent located Plaintiff's wallet, containing Plaintiff's REAL ID-compliant Alabama driver's license, as well as a second driver's license. The HSI Special Agent needed to further verify his U.S. citizenship because each state has its own REAL ID compliance laws, which may provide for the issuance of a REAL ID to an alien and therefore based on HSI Special Agent training and experience, REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship. From page 4 Case 1:25-cV-00397-JB-N Doc# 44-1 Filed 12/11/25 Page 6 of 10 PagelD# 470
16. Only after being cuffed, Plaintiff stated that he had identification in his pocket. He was then brought to stand by the government vehicles. A subsequent search of his pocket by the HSI Special Agent located Plaintiff's wallet, containing Plaintiff's REAL ID-compliant Alabama driver's license, as well as a second driver's license. The HSI Special Agent needed to further verify his U.S. citizenship because each state has its own REAL ID compliance laws, which may provide for the issuance of a REAL ID to an alien and therefore based on HSI Special Agent training and experience, REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship.
Heeding these orders, DHS’s leadership has, according to plaintiffs, implemented a policy and practice of arresting people who live or work in the District and whom they perceive to be Latino, without the required probable cause findings that those individuals are in the United States unlawfully and are likely to escape before an administrative warrant can be obtained. See Pls.’ Prelim. Inj. Mot. at 6. Finding that defendants have implemented such a policy and practice does not require a far leap of logic: defendants themselves have repeatedly emphasized an abandonment of the probable cause standard. For example, Tricia McLaughlin, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and “the principal advisor to Secretary Noem on all external and internal communications,” has made multiple public statements confirming this point.32 On September 25, 2025, in response to this lawsuit, McLaughlin, as DHS spokesperson, is quoted as making the following public statement:
Screenshot from the piece: “I think that if you fit the demographic profile that they're targeting and you are a citizen, [authorities] view the 30 minutes or three hours or three days that you spend in custody as just a necessary cost of the current enforcement system and the quotas and the bonuses and everything that goes along with that,” says Jared McClain, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which is representing Garcia Venegas.
violations or hazardous conditions cannot be seen from the outside of a residence." Id. at 38. In response, Tenants assert the overriding policy consideration in this matter should be the preservation of privacy within one's home. In evaluating cach of the four Edmunds factors, we conclude that article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protections in the area of probable cause to obtain a search warrant for a rental inspection than the Fourth Amendment. Pennsylvania courts have consistently highlighted the importance of its citizens rights to personal privacy within their homes and have frequently departed from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence when its citizens' rights to personal privacy are implicated. Pennsylvania prohibited searches unsupported by probable cause before the United States Constitution was enacted to prohibit, in part, the government from conducting "sweeping searches of residences and businesses, based upon generalized suspicions." See Edmunds, 586 A.2d at 897. As a result, article I, section 8 was specifically designed to prevent the issuance of a warrant on anything less than individualized probable cause. Contrary to the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in Camara, and contrary to many other states that have considered the issue, Pennsylvania's Constitutional drafters designed the probable cause standard for obtaining a search warrant to be established only by a showing that "there is a fair probability that relevant evidence will be found in a particular place." Jacoby, 170 A.3d at 1082. As this Court recognized in Tobin, Camara's probable cause test reduces the rental inspection warrant procedure to a rubber stamp. See Tobin, 828 A.2d at 423 ("obtaining an administrative warrant [under Camara's test] should be a matter of routine"). This does not comport with the history of article I, section 8 or Pennsylvania's protection of the right to privacy in one's home. 23
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dorothy Rivera, Eddy Omar Rivera, Kathleen O'Connor, Rosemarie O'Connor, Estate of Thomas O'Connor, and Steven Camburn : CASES CONSOLIDATED Borough of Pottstown and Keith A. Place, Appellants : No. 190 C.D. 2024 Dorothy Rivera, Eddy Omar Rivera, Kathleen O'Connor, Rosemarie O'Connor, Estate of Thomas O'Connor, and Steven Cambum, Appellants Borough of Pottstown and Keith A. Place : No. 224 C.D. 2024 : Argued: March 5, 2025 BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJIK, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge OPINION BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: December 9, 2025 The Borough of Pottstown and Keith A. Place, the Borough's Director of Licensing and Inspections (collectively, the Borough), appeal from the January 24, 2024 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) to the extent the trial court denied the Borough's motion for summary judgment and granted the request of Dorothy Rivera, Eddy Omar Rivera, Kathleen O'Connor, Rosemarie O'Connor, the Estate of Thomas O'Connor, and Steven Camburn (collectively, Tenants),' to enjoin the Borough from conducting
These statements are just some examples, of many, illustrating the finality of defendants' recent policy of making warrantless arrests under a standard lower than probable cause. See also, e.g., Widas Decl., Ex. 22 (White House official, Stephen Miller, quoted as instructing ICE to stop developing target lists of immigrants and to instead "just go out there" and arrest people right away at Home Depots or 7-Elevens)*; id., Ex. 23 (quoting statement from Acting Executive Associate Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations telling his agents to "turn up the creative knob up to 11 and push the envelope," and another statement from a senior ICE official telling agents, "If it involves handcuffs on wrists, it's probably worth pursuing").38 In fact, when a former-acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California told Bovino that he could not make civil immigration arrests without probable cause, she reportedly was fired. Id., Ex. 16.39 Tellingly, neither defendants' briefs nor their declarations disavowed these public statements. When questioned at the hearing, government counsel's principal defense was that "these statements [were made] by non-attorneys" who "don't necessarily understand" "legal terms of art like "reasonable suspicion, [and] probable cause." Hr'g Tr. at 63:15-19. This is a remarkable assertion. On its face, the government's defense appears to be that the individuals behind these statements are ignorant or incompetent, or both. These statements, however, were made by high-ranking officials including Secretary Noem's principal communications advisor and a Chief Border Patrol Agent-in their official capacity to the press, on DHS's official website, and on DHS's official social media account. The Chief Border Patrol Agent, in fact, made clear
Case 1:25-cv-03417-BAH Document 68 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 88 For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs' motion to enjoin preliminarily defendants from continuing any policy or practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District without making individualized probable cause determinations as to each arrestee's risk of escape, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), is granted, and a final decision on the requested certification of a class and both subclasses will be reserved for a later time. Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing their policy of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause to believe that the arrestee is likely to escape before an administrative warrant can be obtained; and only plaintiffs' proposed Unassessed Escape Risk Class is provisionally certified.
Applications now open: Dave Kennedy Fellowships for Summer 2026
Federal agents observed that Schott had made an overnight trip from Houston to Carrizo Springs, Texas, and back, court records show. They knew he stayed overnight in a hotel about 80 miles (129 kilometers) from the U.S.-Mexico border. They knew that in the morning Schott met a female colleague there before they drove together to a business meeting. At Border Patrol’s request, Schott was pulled over by Bexar County sheriff’s deputies. The deputies held Schott by the side of the road for more than an hour, searched his car and found nothing. “The beautiful thing about the Texas Traffic Code is there’s thousands of things you can stop a vehicle for,” said Joel Babb, the sheriff’s deputy who stopped Schott’s car, in a deposition in a lawsuit Schott filed alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
Title shot of WaPo op-ed, entitled, "He's a citizen with a Real ID. ICE detained him anyway. Twice." with a picture of Leonardo Garcia Venegas standing by his work truck in Baldwin County, Alabama.
Paragraph # 31 of witness statement: An agent wearing an FBI-marked vest told my wife that the agents receive a monetary bonus for each undocumented worker they catch, and that if she pointed out which of the handcuffed workers were undocumented, she would get a $200 cut of that bonus per person.
I told the officers nearest to me that I had all my paperwork, including my U.S. Employment Authorization Card, my Social Security Card, my Florida-issued REAL ID, and my Mexican Passport. 14. The officers walked me to my car and retrieved my paperwork. 15. The officers reviewed my paperwork and used what I believe was facial recognition to confirm my identity. 16. At first, they seemed satisfied, but another officer (who appeared to be a supervisor) said that they could not trust my paperwork because “the Biden Administration made a lot of mistakes.” After about 20 minutes in zip-ties, the officers decided that they would not let me go, and they replaced my zip-ties with handcuffs and shackles around my legs. 18. I was in shackles for several hours before the officers finally told me that they were “giving me a second chance” and let me go. Case 1:25-cv-00397-JB-C Doc# 30-5 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 10 PageID# 361 25-00397-C 30-5 25 Page4of10 PagelD# 17.
arrested has committed an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c) (2) (i) -(ii).4 The Continued Detention Policy authorizes the very type of seizures that Alcocer forbids—but at scale. Many of these seizures turn into arrests that exceed the officers' power under 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(i)-(ii). Under the policy, immigration officers can detain workers—initially seized on the premise that they are undocumented-even after workers show proof of citizenship or lawful presence. Supra pp 11-12. It happened to Leo twice. Both times, officers had his driver's license in hand within minutes. Supra pp. 5-6. Alabama issues licenses only to citizens or those who are lawfully present, Ala. Code § 31- 13-29(c) (1), (g), specifically "to discourage illegal immigration within the state and maximize enforcement of federal immigration laws through cooperation with federal authorities." United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, Leo was "entitled to the presumption that he ….. [was] lawfully present." Ala. Code § 31-13- 3(11). Leo's license also has a star in the corner, which he could obtain only with the documents DHS certifies are compliant with the federal REAL ID Act. 6 C.F.R. § 37.71.5 Under that Act, a REAL ID "suffice[s] to establish lawful presence." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 449 n.1 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring in part).
There are plenty of recent examples. In Chicago, a Latina U.S. citizen and service worker was detained for an hour because immigration officers "questioned the validity of her passport and told her she 'doesn't look like' her family name, Greeley." Id. { 27. In Los Angeles, a citizen with a REAL ID was held for 20 minutes because he couldn't remember the name of his birth hospital. Id. { 28. In Idaho, officers raided a business, collected every Latino's papers, put them in a bag, and tied the bag around their necks before lining them up for further investigation. Id. { 23. In D.C., a Latino construction worker with Temporary Protected Status told officers that he had his papers and they replied, "No you don't. You are illegal. Shut up, bitch! You're illegal!" Id. $ 33. And just this month in Escambia County, Florida, officers raided a private worksite and refused to accept a Latina landscaper's U.S. Employment Authorization Card, Social Security Card, and Florida REAL ID because "the Biden Administration made a lot of mistakes." Doe Decl. § 16. Immigration officers in Alabama treat REAL IDs with similar disregard. Leo has had five officers, during two separate raids that were three weeks and 20 miles apart, tell him that they could not trust that his REAL ID was real. Leo Decl. "* 51, 86.
Immigration officers often have no idea who is on the construction sites they raid. Leo Decl. < 99. Yet DHS policy allows them to preemptively detain all workers who fit the DHS profile without any prior knowledge of their identity, without asking any questions, and without observing any suspicious conduct by the individual workers they seize. Id.; see also, e.g., Windham Decl. $ 33 (officers arrested construction worker in D.C., about whom they had no prior knowledge and whom they did not question, despite his valid Temporary Protected Status), $ 34 (officers arrested construction business owner in D.C., about whom they had no prior knowledge and whom they did not question, despite his Employment Authorization, Social Security Number, and open asylum application). Armed with this policy, officers invade construction sites and round up all Latino workers, often placing them in handcuffs or zip-ties immediately. (citing reports of recent business raid during which children and citizens were zip-tied). Non-Latino workers are left alone. These are not Terry stops-they are not brief and there is no inquiry. Leo was held for about 90 minutes across two stops at which officers did not ask questions about Leo's status and nothing he said could have set him free. Leo Decl. 19 56, 96. Other citizens and lawful residents have been detained for hours or days. One explanation for why these raids do not function like Terry stops is that DHS believes it can arrest people based on the "reasonable suspicion" it thinks attaches to someone's ethnicity and occupation. As Chief Agent Bovino recently explained: "We need reasonable suspicion to make an immigration arrest. You notice I did not say probable cause, nor did I say I need a warrant." Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin gave a similar comment in response to this lawsuit: "DHS law enforcement uses 'reasonable suspicion' to make arrests."
Warrantless Entry Policy. DHS has authorized immigration officers to search all construction sites without consent or a warrant—even private areas that are posted with No Trespassing signs, enclosed with fences, or enclosed with structures. Preemptive Detention Policy. DHS also authorizes immigration officers, once they enter a worksite, to immediately—and without asking questions—detain everybody who fits the agency’s general demographic profile for undocumented workers in that industry. Continued Detention Policy. Finally, whether an initial detention is lawful or not, DHS authorizes the continued detention of all people who fit DHS’s profile even after a detainee produces credible evidence of citizenship or lawful presence, like a REAL ID.
Clip of interview by construction worker explaining how ICE raids were scaring Latino workers from showing up to work and being profiled despite their legal status
Lawyers for Garcia Venegas said he was handcuffed and held for over an hour after agents dismissed the driver's license in his pocket issued only to legal residents as a fake. A few weeks later, he was detained again for about 30 minutes at another construction site 20 miles away. There's a shorthand circulating on the left for this kind of encounter: "Kavanaugh Stops." It's a reference to conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote in a case last month that encounters with immigration agents for legal residents are "typically brief" and affected individuals "promptly go free." Kavanaugh's assessment is at odds with Garcia Venegas' experience,
Cite as: 607 U. S. _ (2025) 1 Statement of GORSUCH, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CORRINE MORGAN THOMAS, ET AL. v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1180. Decided October 14, 2025 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Statement of JUSTICE GORSUCH respecting the denial of certiorari. In Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211, 217 (1916), this Court held that the Seventh Amendment's civil jury trial right is not enforceable against the States. Petitioners ask us to reconsider that decision. But a number of "vehicle" problems make it unlikely that we could do so in this case. See Brief in Opposition 21-44. Ac-cordingly, I agree with the Court's decision to deny review. At the same time, I do not doubt that Bombolis warrants a second look.
10:014 • Messages •el 5Gw • Subscribe enforcement crackdown in Chicago denied that racial profiling factors into arrests made by federal officers. "We need reasonable suspicion to make an immigration arrest," Gregory Bovino said. "You notice I did not say probable cause, nor did I say I need a warrant. We need reasonable suspicion of illegal alienage that's well-grounded within the United States immigration law." The Supreme Court in a 1 2 Newer Posts Septembe war weared the way for a person's ethnicity to be at least a partial factor cnn.com
“Under the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, DHS law enforcement uses ‘reasonable suspicion’ to make arrests,” There are no ‘indiscriminate stops’ being made. The (U.S.) Supreme Court recently vindicated us on this question. DHS enforces federal immigration law without fear, favor, or prejudice.” McLaughlin went on to say that the lawsuit is only adding fuel to violent strikes against ICE agents in respone to ramped up immigration enforcement, such as a sniper attack on the ICE Dallas Field Office on Sept. 24. “This type of garbage is directly contributing to ICE officers facing a 1000% increase in assaults against them,” McLaughlin said. “... Race-baiting opportunism in the form of a baseless lawsuit is no better than when it comes from politicians or activists.”
Portion of opinion in Box v. Broward County describing the conditions in jail: Plaintiff was detained in jail through Christmas Day. She alleges that she experienced what is more-or-less typical of any person arrested and detained in jail, including body cavity searches, exposure to violence and unceasing loud noises that made sleep impossible, interactions with condescending and uncaring guards (who, male and female, also watched her shower), enduring unbearably cold temperatures, and so on. Id. 11 135-46. After her arraignment on Christmas Day, BSO transferred Plaintiff to Paul Rein Detention Center, where the conditions were similar to those at the first detention center except that the guards also allegedly played death-metal music throughout the cells at all hours. Id. 11 148, 152-54, 157-58
These two examples are sufficient to get Plaintiff over the hurdle of showing prior, similar incidents. The inference that the Sheriff had notice of the improper police conduct (here, arresting the wrong person despite glaring red flags indicating a case of mistaken identity) and failed to take remedial action is bolstered by the allegation that BSO's Internal Affairs Division reviewed Plaintiffs incident and confirmed that the Deputies followed all BSO protocols and did not violate any BSO policies.
Case 0:24-cv-61734-MD Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2025 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 24-61734-CIV-DAMIAN/Valle JENNIFER HEATH BOX, Plaintift, BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF GREGORY TONY, et al., Defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS [ECE NO. 31] THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants, Broward County Sheriff Gregory Tony ("the Sheriff"), Deputy Peter Peraza, Deputy Monica Jean, Deputy Jasmine Hines, and Deputy Anthony Thorpe (collectively, "the Deputies," and with the Sheriff, "Defendants"), Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31 (the "Motion")], filed February 10, 2025. THE COURT has reviewed the Motion and the Response [ECF No. 43] thereto (no Reply was filed), the pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that the Motion is due to be granted in part. I. BACKGROUND' As alleged in the Amended Complaint, on Christmas Eve 2022, Plaintiff, Jennifer Heath Box ("Plaintiff"), was disembarking at Port Everglades following a cruise with her conte then an the at nos ae o Famit, St aer re i ne 45 ป. 69, 73 (1984).
Dear Councilmembers: The Institute for Justice is writing to you concerning the proposed ordinance that would allow police to use cameras with facial recognition to investigate crimes. The proposed law is unconstitutional. IJ recommends that the City Council reject the amendment and, instead, ensure that police cannot use intrusive technology to track people’s public movement. The Institute for Justice The Institute for Justice is a national nonprofit law firm that has defended constitutional rights in court for decades. Four years ago, IJ launched its Project on the Fourth Amendment to bolster all Americans’ right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. And just last week, IJ launched a new Plate Privacy Project to combat the abuses of automated license-plate readers (“ALRPs”) as a means of surveillance.1 Over the years, IJ has litigated search-and-seizure cases nationwide, including challenges to rental inspection ordinances in Iowa and Pennsylvania, as well as major class actions against the FBI, DEA, and other federal agencies. In addition to creating binding judicial precedent, these cases have led to consent decrees, such as one prohibiting New York City from conditioning a business’s right to operate on its agreement to provide the NYPD with access to security footage,
Photo of George in army fatigues sitting on the back of an army vehicle.
Picture of Eric Andre
Cover page of Eleventh Circuit's decision in Andre v. Clayton County, No. 23-13253