Judge Halts ICE’s Use of Warrantless DC Immigration Arrests (1)

Latinos in Washington, DC are entitled to early relief in their suit accusing ICE officers and federal agents of unlawfully targeting them for immigration arrests without warrants and probable cause.

The plaintiffs showed they are likely to succeed in establishing the officials are engaging in practices that violate the Immigration and Nationality Act, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia said Tuesday order partially granting a preliminary injunction.

US officials must stop enforcing their policy of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause to believe an arrestee is likely to escape before officials can obtain an administrative warrant, Howell said.

The ruling comes during a larger effort by immigration advocates against the Trump administration’s policies. A Colorado federal judge last week ordered DHS to temporarily stop its practice of making warrantless immigration-related arrests in the state.

‘Blatant’ Profiling

The complaint, filed Sept. 25, said mass immigration stops and arrests of Latinos in DC are the result of “blatant” racial profiling.

José Escobar Molina, one of the plaintiffs, said he has maintained temporary protected status for El Salvador for over 20 years. He said unidentified federal agents arrested him in August without a warrant and without asking for personal information.

He said ICE detained him, but then released him when an ICE supervisor realized he had a valid TPS.

This and other similar encounters, the complaint said, are part of a policy that violates a federal law that says agents can make an immigration arrest without a warrant, only if they have reason to believe an individual is violating an immigration law, and if an individual is likely to escape before agents can get a warrant for an arrest.

Escape Risk

Immigration officers may conduct warrantless arrests only if they have probable cause to believe a person in the country unlawfully and is an escape risk, the court said. Whether a person is likely to escape before officers get a warrant requires an individualized fact determination.

But, Howell said, statements from Trump administration officials show “an intentional policy and practice” of conducting warrantless arrests without probable cause and without considering escape risk, in violatiion of federal law, and they reflect an improper attempt to conflate arrests with civil immigration stops.

The opinion cited Chief Border Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino saying, for example, that officers only need to show reasonable suspicion to make an arrest. Those public statements are backed by examples more than two dozen declarations describing about 40 warrantless civil immigration arrests without requisite probable cause findings, Howell said.

While the government has a legitimate concern about judicial micromanagement of individual arrests, the injunction precludes enforcement of the policy and practice of making warrantless arrests, not warrantless arrests themselves, Howell said.

The court also partially granted the plaintiffs’ request for class certification. They can move forward with an unassessed escape risk subclass, which consists of all persons arrested since Aug. 11, or will be arrested, for alleged violations without a warrant, and without a pre-arrest, individualized assessment of probable cause that the person poses and escape risk.

Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of the District of Columbia, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Covington & Burling LLP, Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, CASA Inc., and National Immigration Project represent the plaintiffs.

The case is Escobar Molina v. US Dep’t of Homeland Sec., D.D.C., No. 25-cv-3417, 12/2/25.