A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers may not make arrests without a warrant unless they determine the person is likely to flee.
U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai issued a preliminary injunction in a proposed class-action lawsuit targeting practices by agents of the Department of Homeland Security.
The order bars ICE officers in Oregon from detaining people without warrants unless there is a demonstrated risk of escape.
Kasubhai’s ruling comes in a lawsuit brought by the Portland nonprofit group Innovation Law Lab on behalf of immigrants arrested in the state. The judge granted class-action status, meaning the injunction could apply broadly to others in similar positions.
At the heart of the case are accounts from individuals who say they were detained without warrants during heightened immigration operations in Oregon.
One plaintiff, Victor Cruz Gamez, testified that he was held in an immigration detention facility for about three weeks after being picked up without a warrant despite holding a valid work permit and a pending visa application.
Kasubhai described some of the officers’ conduct as unnecessarily aggressive, including drawing guns on people during civil immigration detentions. He said the actions raised serious due process concerns.
A memo issued by Todd Lyons last week said agents should generally obtain administrative arrest warrants before detaining someone, except when there is probable cause to believe the person might flee before a warrant can be obtained.
The move in Oregon comes as Trump and his administration are shifting to a softer tone on immigration operations.
The president took credit for the decision to withdraw 700 personnel from ICE and Customs and Border Protection.
MINNESOTA SCHOOLS ASK COURT TO BLOCK ICE IN LATEST EFFORT TO HAMPER IMMIGRATION OPERATIONS
Lyons was set to testify in Minnesota last week after Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick Schlitz ordered him to explain why ICE should not be held in contempt of court over its handling of detained migrants and repeated failures to comply with judicial directives.
The hearing was a part of a case involving a man who was detained by ICE and kept in custody despite a court order requiring either a bond hearing or his release.
