A class action lawsuit by individuals with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other government agencies raises questions about whether they are claiming discrimination and rights protection or simply shielding members of criminal organizations like the Tren de Aragua.
The plaintiffs—individuals with protected migratory status or pending asylum applications, along with the nonprofit organization CASA Inc.—filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against multiple federal agencies.
The main complaint addresses the policy and practice of conducting immigration arrests without a judicial warrant and without the individualized probable cause required by federal law in Washington, D.C. In this regard, the lawsuit details several incidents of arrests that, according to the plaintiffs, were based on racial profiling and carried out without proper evaluation of migratory status or flight risk, causing physical and psychological harm to the community.
The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to stop these practices and declare the policies that enable such mass arrests as illegal.
The Class Action
On September 25, 2025, a group of individuals and the nonprofit organization CASA Inc. filed a class action against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and other federal agencies in the U.S. They accuse them of implementing a policy and practice of mass immigration arrests without a judicial warrant in Washington D.C., which systematically targets individuals perceived as Latina.
Before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, they claimed that these arrests directly violate federal statute (8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2)), which requires agents to have “reason to believe”—equivalent to probable cause—about two specific conditions before making a warrantless arrest:
- that the person is illegally present in the country; and
- that it is likely the individual will flee before a judicial warrant can be obtained.
The lawsuit argues that federal agents conduct arrests without any individualized assessment of the individual’s migratory status or flight risk.
They contend that this created a climate of fear in immigrant communities, caused psychological and physical harm to individuals, and diverted critical resources from social service organizations like CASA. The plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that the policy is illegal and an injunction to put an end to these practices.
Context and Government Policy
The lawsuit situates the arrests within a broader strategy of the Trump administration aimed at conducting mass deportations. This strategy is manifested—according to the plaintiffs—through several key actions:
Campaign Promise:
It cites President Donald Trump’s promise to initiate “the largest deportation operation in the history of our country” from day one of his presidency.
Arrest Quotas:
In January 2025, the administration imposed a quota of 75 daily arrests on ICE field offices. By May 2025, this quota increased to 3000 daily arrests, a figure confirmed publicly by White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Stephen Miller.
Expansion of Powers:
The Department of Homeland Security granted non-DHS federal agencies, such as the DEA, immigration law enforcement powers to help meet the quotas.
Federal Control over D.C.:
Through executive orders, the administration seeks greater control over the capital. Executive Order 14252 (March 27, 2025) established a task force to, among other things, direct the “maximum enforcement of federal immigration law” in the metropolitan area of D.C.
Declaration of “Crime Emergency”:
On August 11, 2025, President Trump declared a “crime emergency” in D.C. (Executive Order 14333), taking control of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and deploying the National Guard. The lawsuit argues this was a pretext for immigration law enforcement, citing the President’s statements that the city “will no longer be a sanctuary for illegal foreign criminals.”
Key Statistics During the Emergency Period
- Total immigration arrests: from August 11 to September 9, 2025, there were 943 arrests made for civil federal immigration reasons.
- Arrest proportion: these arrests constituted over 40% of all arrests conducted in D.C. during that period.
- Lack of criminal records: more than 70% of individuals arrested for immigration law violations during this surge had no criminal records, which, according to the lawsuit, demonstrates that the focus was on immigration rather than “crime.”
Systematic Violation of Federal Law
The legal core of the lawsuit is the violation of statute 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), which establishes a limited exception to the judicial warrant requirement for immigration arrests and requires that an agent has probable cause regarding two distinct elements:
- Illegal status: the agent must have “reason to believe” that the person is in the United States in violation of any immigration law or regulation.
- Flight risk: the agent must have “reason to believe” that the person “is likely to flee before a judicial warrant for their arrest can be obtained.”
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants instituted a policy and practice that disregards both requirements, particularly the second, by failing to conduct an individualized assessment of flight risk.
The complaint states that this policy was abandoned in D.C. to facilitate “sweeps in the streets,” as evidenced by the removal of requirements for supervisor approval and filling out forms before an arrest.
Pattern of Arrests and Racial Profiling
The lawsuit documents a pattern of indiscriminate arrests based on the perceived ethnicity of individuals. Federal agents, often in plainclothes, masked, and armed, detain people in their daily activities.
It cites a specific example of racial profiling where an officer detained a Latina woman, a U.S. citizen, explicitly telling her that she was being stopped because she “didn’t look like a citizen.”
The following individual cases are presented as evidence of the illegal pattern of behavior:
Name/Identifier | Status/Context | Circumstances of Arrest |
---|---|---|
José Escobar Molina | Resident of D.C. for 25 years, with valid Temporary Protected Status (TPS) since 2001. | Arrested on August 21, 2025, when leaving his apartment for work. Plainclothes agents immediately handcuffed him without asking for his name, ID, or migratory status. He was released the next day after an ICE supervisor realized he had valid TPS. |
B.S.R. | Asylum seeker from Honduras, with a pending application and wearing an ICE ankle monitor. | Arrested on August 18, 2025, in his car with his father. Agents (including one from Border Patrol) arrested him without a warrant and without prior questions. He showed his ankle monitor after the arrest. He was released after 10 hours. |
N.S. | Asylum seeker from Venezuela with a pending application. | Arrested on August 12, 2025, in a Home Depot parking lot by an agent with DEA and ICE badges. He was arrested without a warrant or inquiries about his community ties. He was detained for almost four weeks in various centers before being released. |
R.S.M. | Asylum seeker from El Salvador with a pending application. | Arrested on August 26, 2025, while driving to work with her husband. Agents asked for identification and then arrested her without a warrant and without asking about her community ties. She was released after 10 hours with an ankle monitor. |
Additional CASA Members | Includes a U.S. citizen whose colleague was arrested, construction workers, delivery people, and others in everyday situations (car accidents, taking out the trash). | In all cases, the pattern repeats: warrantless arrests, without prior investigations into migratory status or community ties to assess flight risk, and often with aggressive use of force. |
Impact on Plaintiffs and the Community
The lawsuit outlines the serious harms caused by the plaintiffs’ arrest policies.
Individual harms: they accuse of physical and psychological damage and living in a climate of fear in their communities.
Harms to CASA Inc.: they report having to divert significant resources from their core programs—social services, health, legal assistance to stabilize migratory status—to respond to emergency detentions.
They mention a fortyfold increase in complaints against ICE in their offices regarding arrest reports in D.C. over a two-week period in August 2025; a 25% increase in the workload of CASA’s Health and Human Services team to respond to detentions. Costs for the hotline increased by 14%.
They say they suffer from a loss of funding and face a chilling effect, as community members became hesitant to share personal information needed to access social services and public benefits for fear that their migratory status would be used against them.
Class Action Allegations and Requested Relief
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class and two subclasses of individuals affected by these policies.
Class of Warrantless Arrests:
All individuals who, from August 11, 2025, have been or will be arrested in D.C. for alleged immigration violations without a judicial warrant and without a prior individualized assessment of probable cause that the person is illegally in the U.S. and represents a flight risk.
Subclass of Migratory Status:
Those arrested without a prior evaluation of probable cause regarding their illegal status.
Subclass of Flight Risk:
Those arrested without a prior evaluation of probable cause regarding their flight risk.
The lawsuit presents two main claims for relief, both for the violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA):
- First claim: for making arrests without an individualized assessment of migratory status.
- Second claim: for making arrests without an individualized assessment of flight risk.
The plaintiffs request the court to:
- Certify the lawsuit as a class action.
- Declare that the defendants’ policy and practice are illegal.
- Vacate and nullify said policy.
- Issue an injunction prohibiting the defendants from continuing arrests without the necessary probable cause for both required elements under the law.
- Order the defendants to erase all records related to the illegal arrests of the plaintiffs and class members.
- Award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.
Check out “My conversation with Karina Mariani” on Sin Filtros: