Border Patrol faulted for ignoring court order on immigration stops

A federal judge ordered the U.S. Border Patrol to properly document reasonable suspicion for immigration stops, writing that the agency has failed to comply with a preliminary injunction she issued last year.

The case grew out of "Operation Return to Sender," an enforcement action ordered by Gregory Bovino, who was then the patrol's El Centro sector chief. U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston granted, in part, the plaintiffs' motion to enforce a prior preliminary injunction, finding agents had continued to violate an earlier order by conducting stops without reasonable suspicion and relied on flawed, boilerplate documentation lacking individualized facts.

Immigration experts say the case illustrates a wider issue of immigration enforcers failing to follow court directives.

"Months after the Court issued the PI Order, on July 17, 2025, Border Patrol engaged in an immigration enforcement action in the parking lot of a Home Depot in the City of Sacramento," Thurston wrote in her order issued Wednesday. "In connection with this action, Defendants produced eleven, virtually identical U.S. Department of Homeland Security Form I-213s, purporting to correspond to the people who were stopped and arrested during this action, and which they claim support the detentions and arrests."

The Border Patrol, its counsel and attorneys for Bovino did not respond to emails seeking comment on *United Farm Workers v. Noem*, 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal., filed Feb. 26, 2025).

"We are pleased Judge Thurston has continued to make clear that she will not tolerate Border Patrol engaging in lawless stop and arrest practices," Jason George, of counsel with Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, which represents the United Farm Workers, responded in an email. "We continue to advocate for all residents of the Eastern District of California as we advance towards proving our case at trial and putting a permanent stop to Border Patrol's unconstitutional practices. We fully expect that Defendants will comply with Judge Thurston's orders going forward or we will gladly see them back in court."

Thurston ordered the Border Patrol to "personally document the facts and circumstances surrounding" each stop and to "explain any background factors relied upon by the agent in sufficient detail to permit an examination of the factual justifications." But she stopped short of ordering broader relief sought by the plaintiffs, such as mandating new policies or additional training.

UC Davis School of Law Dean Kevin R. Johnson said Thurston's order is part of a "process" that could eventually lead to tougher remedies.

"Judge Thurston acted with restraint," Johnson said in an email. "At this point, she has not imposed fines or other penalties and is giving the U.S. government a chance to comply with her order."

Matt A. Crapo, the director of litigation with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, declined to comment on the ruling. But he shared a copy of an amicus curiae brief the federation filed last year arguing Thurston should reject the case. The federation is a nonprofit advocacy group that advocates for more enforcement of laws against illegal immigration.

"This Court should deny Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction because it lacks jurisdiction to enjoin the government's actions to remove aliens illegally present in the United States," stated the brief signed by Mark P. Meuser. "Even if this Court has jurisdiction over this case, Plaintiffs are unlikely to demonstrate the requisite risk of future harm to qualify for injunctive relief."

The brief continued, "Congress requires aliens to exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial review of their claims in a 'petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals.'" Meuser was then with Dhillon Law Group Inc., the San Francisco firm founded by Harmeet K. Dhillon, now the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Justice. Meuser is now a member with Chalmers, Adams, Backer & Wallen LLC.

Federal judges in Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota and elsewhere in California have also issued orders restricting the actions of the Border Patrol or Immigration and Customs Enforcement. These range from orders requiring immigration detainees to have access to attorneys and barring transfer out of state to injunctions protecting the First Amendment rights of journalists and protesters. In a January order, Minnesota Chief U.S. District Judge Patrick J. Schiltz wrote that ICE agents violated court orders 96 times in 74 detention cases that month.

"This has been a problem in many cases involving the Trump administration immigration policies," Johnson said.

The case has also split some conservatives.

Last June, the U.S. Department of Justice appealed Thurston's first preliminary injunction and order granting class certification. That prompted an amicus curiae brief from the libertarian-leaning Cato Institute, which argued the Border Patrol violated the U.S. Constitution by targeting people because of their race. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is set to hear arguments on April 22 in San Francisco. *United Farm Workers v. Noem*, 25-4047 (9th Cir., filed June 30, 2025)