A lawsuit filed against Kristi Noem in her capacity as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, along with other federal officials, has resulted in a major legal victory—not only for the United Farm Workers Association but also for civil rights protections across California.
On Tuesday, a federal court in Fresno issued a preliminary injunction that prohibits U.S. Border Patrol agents from conducting warrantless arrests anywhere in California without probable cause or a warrant.
District Court Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, who presided over the hearing, acknowledged the forceful arguments presented by ACLU attorneys representing the plaintiffs. The hearing was marked by tense exchanges between the judge and government attorneys.
The lawsuit stems from “Operation Return to Sender,” a two-day immigration enforcement operation carried out by Border Patrol in Kern County on January 7. During the sweep, 78 individuals were arrested. Plaintiffs argued that the operation was rooted in racial profiling, as agents primarily targeted Latino neighborhoods.
Around 60 agents were deployed to the Central Valley for what the plaintiffs described as a weeklong campaign across predominantly Latino areas in Kern County and neighboring regions. According to the lawsuit, individuals were stopped, detained, and arrested based on perceived ethnicity or appearance—specifically targeting farm workers or day laborers.
“Citizens and legal permanent residents were among those stopped,” ACLU attorneys argued. “Border Patrol is attempting to circumvent jurisdictional boundaries.”
The lawsuit also pointed to similar enforcement actions in cities like Pomona, California, suggesting a broader pattern of aggressive and discriminatory tactics across the state.
According to the ACLU, Border Patrol agents followed a three-step pattern during these raids:
- Stop individuals without reasonable suspicion
- Arrest them without assessing flight risk
- Expel them without explanation
These actions, the plaintiffs contend, violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Agents reportedly traveled nearly 300 miles north of the U.S. border to Bakersfield, conducted searches without warrants, slashed tires, smashed car windows, and made arrests based on skin color.
One of the plaintiffs, Oscar Morales Cisneros—a legal permanent resident—was detained during the January operation. According to court documents, agents surrounded him in a parking lot, questioned his legal status, and detained him despite his cooperation and the presentation of his driver’s license.
Judge Thurston criticized the agents’ conduct, expressing disbelief that CBP officers would be unaware of Fourth Amendment protections. She remarked that such actions were a clear constitutional violation and that agents receive extensive training on these legal standards.
In response, government attorneys said the agency had issued updated guidance and would retrain agents to ensure compliance with the Fourth Amendment. However, Thurston questioned how this training would differ from what agents already receive in the academy and pressed for clarity on the remedies being offered to plaintiffs.
Despite the personal testimonies detailing the anxiety, fear, and trauma caused by the raids, government attorneys argued that they had met their legal burden and disputed the plaintiffs’ claims. They maintained that the injunction was unnecessary and that CBP had already offered remedies, including training, which they believed addressed the concerns raised.
Judge Thurston challenged the government’s stance, questioning how the existence of documented arrests could be considered a burden when plaintiffs were simply asking for accountability.
Plaintiffs’ counsel pointed out that government attorneys failed to address much of the core evidence submitted. Thurston criticized the defense’s approach, emphasizing that people should not be stopped based solely on the color of their skin or pressured to produce legal documentation without cause.
Government attorneys continued to downplay the plaintiffs’ accounts as unsubstantiated, but Judge Thurston disagreed, referencing written testimonies and arrest records that documented the events in question. She noted that the existence of such records contradicted the government’s claim that no sufficient evidence had been presented.
