District Judge Issues Injunction That Violates Established Immigration Law

U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, based in the Eastern District of California, issued a preliminary injunction on April 29, 2025, prohibiting Border Patrol agents from arresting suspected undocumented immigrants without a warrant or probable cause that the individual might flee before a warrant can be obtained. The ruling, which applies only to the Eastern District, stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the ACLU, alleging that Border Patrol agents unconstitutionally detained individuals, primarily farmworkers and day laborers, during a January 2025 operation called “Operation Return to Sender.” Thurston found that agents violated Fourth Amendment rights by stopping people based on appearance, often without reasonable suspicion, and ordered Border Patrol to submit reports every 60 days detailing warrantless detentions until the lawsuit concludes.

The decision has sparked significant controversy, with critics arguing it hampers immigration enforcement efforts. Border Patrol attorneys contended that the court lacked jurisdiction, as immigration matters typically require a final order from an immigration judge, and claimed the issue was moot due to new agency guidance on arrests. However, Thurston rejected these arguments, emphasizing the need for constitutional protections against arbitrary detentions. The ACLU highlighted that detainees were bused to the border, held without access to family or legal counsel, and coerced into signing documents waiving their rights to see an immigration judge, practices Thurston deemed unconstitutional. The ruling also bars agents from using “voluntary departure” unless individuals are fully informed of their rights and consent to leave.

Public and political reactions, as seen in posts on X, reflect deep divisions. Some users, like @LauraLoomer and @HANKonX, labeled the ruling a “judicial coup” or an attempt to “erase” the country, accusing Thurston, a Biden appointee, of undermining federal law that permits warrantless arrests in certain immigration contexts. Others, including legal analysts, argue the decision reinforces constitutional safeguards against racial profiling and overreach, noting that the Fourth Amendment requires reasonable suspicion for stops and probable cause for arrests. While the ruling is limited in scope, it underscores ongoing tensions between federal immigration authority and judicial oversight, with potential implications for how Border Patrol operates in California’s Central Valley, where the sweeps occurred.