Judge Restricts Border Patrol Arrests in California Following Alleged Rights Violations
A federal judge has temporarily stopped Border Patrol from using certain enforcement tactics in Central California, saying they likely violated the U.S. Constitution and federal law.
The case, United Farm Workers v. Noem, was filed by the United Farm Workers union and several people who live in Kern County. They say that during a January 2025 immigration enforcement effort called “Operation Return to Sender,” Border Patrol agents stopped and arrested people based on how they looked, without having a legal reason to do so.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston ruled that:
Agents cannot stop people unless they have a reasonable suspicion the person is in the U.S. illegally.
Agents cannot arrest people without a warrant unless they have probable cause and believe the person might run away.
Agents must now write down and document all stops and arrests in that part of California.
Border Patrol must also train agents to follow these rules.
The court also allowed the case to move forward as a class action, meaning many other people who were affected—or could be—are now included and protected by this lawsuit.
According to the Associated Press, attorneys for the U.S. Border Patrol argued that the judge lacked jurisdiction over the case, citing federal law that allows immigration matters to be appealed only after a final order from an immigration judge. They also contended that the lawsuit was moot because the Border Patrol had already updated its guidance and training for agents, specifying when arrests or stops without warrants are permissible, along with detainee rights
.However, Thurston countered that the lawsuit couldn’t be dismissed simply because a new policy had been issued after the suit was filed, arguing that the language in the policy didn’t sufficiently protect against illegal stops and could be subject to future changes.
The operation focused on Kern County, where agents reportedly stopped drivers, blocked cars, approached people standing outside stores, and arrested dozens—many of whom were Latino farm workers or day laborers. Some were taken about 300 miles south to a detention center in El Centro. Several plaintiffs say they were pressured into signing documents agreeing to leave the U.S., without fully understanding their rights.
In one case, Oscar Morales Cisneros, a long-time resident with no criminal record, says he was blocked in at a parking lot, questioned by agents, and taken away without being told why. He says he asked to see a judge but was instead told to sign a document that led to his release with a monitoring device.
When asked for comment, Assistant Chief David Kim of the El Centro Sector Border Patrol said:
“Due to the on-going litigation of this case, the El Centro Sector Border Patrol does not have a comment at this time. Once the case is resolved fully, we may have comments on the outcome.”
The lawsuit was filed against top officials at the Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol, including the sector chief in El Centro. The plaintiffs are being represented by the ACLU and a San Francisco law firm.
This ruling only affects Border Patrol actions in the Eastern District of California, which includes areas from Bakersfield up to the Oregon border. The case will continue as the court looks at whether the temporary restrictions should become permanent.
Summary of the Court’s Ruling (April 29, 2025)
Case Title: United Farm Workers et al. v. Kristi Noem et al.
Case Number: 1:25-cv-00246 JLT CDB
Court: United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Presiding Judge: Hon. Jennifer L. Thurston
Filed: February 2025
Order Issued: April 29, 2025
Documents Referenced: Court Order (Doc. 47), Motion for Class Certification (Doc. 14), Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 15), Complaint (Doc. 1), Supporting Declarations (Docs. 15-9, 15-10, etc.)
The court granted a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that Border Patrol likely violated the:
Fourth Amendment – protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures
Fifth Amendment – protecting due process rights
8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) – immigration statute restricting warrantless arrests
8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(ii) – regulation requiring agents to assess flight risk before arrest
The ruling cited that Border Patrol agents conducted “Operation Return to Sender” in Kern County in early January 2025, during which approximately 60 agents from the El Centro Sector were deployed to the Central Valley region.
The Court found evidence that:
Agents stopped people without reasonable suspicion they were in the country unlawfully.
Arrests were made without determining whether individuals posed a flight risk, as required by law.
Individuals were transported over 300 miles to the El Centro Station without access to legal counsel or proper hearings.
Agents allegedly coerced or misled detainees into signing voluntary departure agreements without explaining the consequences.
These actions were part of a pattern, not isolated incidents.
Provisional Class Certification
The Court certified the following two classes:
Suspicionless Stop Class:
All individuals within the Eastern District of California who have been or are at risk of being stopped by U.S. Border Patrol without reasonable suspicion that they are unlawfully present in the United States.Warrantless Arrest Class:
All individuals within the Eastern District of California who have been or are at risk of being arrested by Border Patrol agents without a warrant and without a lawful determination that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.
These classes are now entitled to protection under the Court’s order.
Named Plaintiffs and Their Allegations
Oscar Morales Cisneros
A 51-year-old construction worker from Bakersfield.
Stopped in a liquor store parking lot while filling water.
Blocked in by an unmarked vehicle, questioned, and detained without a warrant.
Transported to El Centro, held, and pressured to sign forms.
Fitted with an electronic monitoring device and released.
Wilder Munguia Esquivel
A 38-year-old day laborer with a pending family petition.
Picked up while standing with others in a public area.
Claims he was arrested without reason and transported south.
Denied legal access during initial detention.
Other Plaintiffs:
Yolanda Aguilera Martinez
Juan Vargas Mendez
Maria Guadalupe Hernandez Espinosa
All allege racial profiling and unlawful detention during the operation.
Government Defendants
The defendants are being sued in their official capacities:
Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security
Pete R. Flores, Acting Commissioner of U.S. Border Patrol
Michael W. Banks, Chief of U.S. Border Patrol
Gregory K. Bovino, Chief Patrol Agent for the El Centro Sector
Key Legal Findings from Judge Thurston’s Ruling
“The practices employed by Border Patrol agents…demonstrated imminent, irreparable harm to the people affected.”
“There is no dispute that warrantless arrests must be based on individualized findings of flight risk.”
“Border Patrol’s stated plans to expand this enforcement model into other regions of the Eastern District pose a continued risk to civil rights.”
What the Ruling Requires Border Patrol to Do
Stop making detentions without reasonable suspicion.
Stop making warrantless arrests unless there’s a clear flight risk.
Document all stops and arrests in the Eastern District.
Issue written guidance and training to ensure compliance.
Response from Border Patrol
When contacted for comment, Assistant Chief David Kim of the El Centro Sector Border Patrol stated:
“Due to the on-going litigation of this case, the El Centro Sector Border Patrol does not have a comment at this time. Once the case is resolved fully, we may have comments on the outcome.”
Next Steps in the Case
This ruling is not the final decision in the case—it’s a temporary measure while the lawsuit proceeds. The court found that the plaintiffs have a strong enough case to justify blocking certain actions while the full legal process plays out.
View the Full Court Order (PDF)
For all filings and case updates, visit PACER.gov (Case No. 1:25-cv-00246 JLT CDB)
This summary was generated using artificial intelligence