Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),
A federal judge in California has barred U.S. Border Patrol agents from arresting suspected illegal immigrants within parts of the state without a warrant or specific evidence that the individual poses a flight risk—while delivering a rebuke to tactics used during a controversial January enforcement sweep.
In an April 29 order, U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Border Patrol, siding with the United Farm Workers and five Kern County residents who sued after the raid, dubbed “Operation Return to Sender,” unfolded across the Bakersfield area earlier this year.
The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), alleged in their Feb. 26 complaint that the sweep violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, along with federal immigration statutes governing warrantless arrests and due process.
Under Thurston’s order, Border Patrol agents operating in California’s Eastern District are now prohibited from making detentions or arrests without first establishing reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence in the country and, for arrests, probable cause that the individual is likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained.
“The evidence before the Court is that Border Patrol agents under DHS authority engaged in conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights,” Thurston wrote in the ruling.
The court also restricted the agency’s use of “voluntary departure,” a process by which illegal immigrants agree to leave the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge. Going forward, agents must clearly inform individuals of their rights and obtain genuine, informed consent before initiating such removals.
The judge further ordered DHS to submit regular reports documenting any warrantless stops or arrests, along with justifications, for the duration of litigation. She also instructed DHS to issue written guidelines clarifying the legal threshold for initiating stops.
“This guidance shall include, among other things, that refusal to answer questions does not, without more, constitute a basis for reasonable suspicion to justify a detentive stop,” she wrote.
The case stems from allegations that, beginning in early January 2025, dozens of Border Patrol agents traveled more than 300 miles inland from the U.S.–Mexico border to Bakersfield, targeting predominantly Latino neighborhoods and day laborer gathering spots without individualized suspicion.
The plaintiffs described “Operation Return to Sender” as a sweeping dragnet based on racial and occupational profiling, claiming agents pulled over vehicles, blocked parked cars, conducted warrantless searches, and detained people without evidence of unlawful presence.
Once in custody, detainees were allegedly transported to a facility near the border, denied access to attorneys, and pressured into signing “voluntary departure” forms without understanding the consequences—a process plaintiffs described as “summary expulsion” that can carry long-term reentry bans.
Once in custody, detainees claimed they were transported to a Border Patrol facility near the border, where they were denied access to lawyers and coerced into signing “voluntary departure” forms under misleading pretenses, which they described as a “form of summary expulsion.”
Attorneys for the Justice Department argued the case should be dismissed, claiming the plaintiffs lacked standing and that no official policy mandated unlawful stops or arrests. They further contended that any potential violations were isolated incidents, not part of a broader pattern, and that the lawsuit had become moot after DHS issued revised internal guidance.
But the court rejected those arguments, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated a credible threat of repeated harm. Thurston wrote that the new DHS policy did not eliminate the risk of future violations and “could be withdrawn or altered in the future” without constraint.
The Epoch Times contacted the Justice Department and the ACLU with requests for comment on the ruling.
Loading…
