Federal judge issues preliminary injunction against U.S. Border Patrol.
Fresno, CA — In a rebuke of allegedly unconstitutional immigration enforcement practices under the Trump administration, a federal district court has issued a preliminary injunction against the U.S. Border Patrol, halting what the court deemed unlawful stop-and-arrest operations in California’s Eastern District.
The ruling stems from United Farm Workers v. Noem, a class-action civil rights case challenging Border Patrol’s recent “Operation Return to Sender,” a multi-day sweep through predominantly Latino communities in California’s Central Valley.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston’s 88-page order, filed April 29, 2025, grants both a preliminary injunction and provisional class certification, providing sweeping protections for individuals in the Eastern District of California—a region stretching from Bakersfield to the Oregon border.
The injunction prohibits Border Patrol from conducting detentive stops and warrantless arrests without proper legal justification and requires the agency to implement training and documentation protocols to comply with the Fourth Amendment.
The lawsuit alleges that in January 2025, approximately 60 Border Patrol agents were deployed to the Bakersfield region for “Operation Return to Sender.” Despite public claims that the operation targeted serious criminal activity, internal data shows that “for 77 of the 78 arrested individuals, the entry in the [Border Patrol’s] criminal history column reads ‘Criminal and/or immigration history was not known prior to the encounter,’” according to evidence submitted in court .
According to the court filing, agents conducted detentive stops without reasonable suspicion, arrested individuals without evaluating flight risk, and coerced people into signing “voluntary departure” agreements without explaining the consequences. The court found that these practices—“by design”—violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, as well as federal statutory law .
Judge Thurston wrote that the record demonstrated imminent, irreparable harm from the agency’s operations, citing “practices employed by Border Patrol agents during ‘Operation Return to Sender’— including detentive stops on foot patrols and vehicular stops without reasonable suspicion” and the government’s admission that “Border Patrol agents are not currently trained on their obligations under the Fourth Amendment.”
The injunction prohibits Border Patrol agents operating in the Eastern District of California from:
- Stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion that they are noncitizens unlawfully present in the U.S.
- Arresting individuals without a warrant unless agents have probable cause to believe the person is likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained.
Additionally, the court ordered the agency to document “all facts and circumstances” related to future stops and warrantless arrests in the district and to issue guidance ensuring compliance with constitutional and statutory standards.
In granting the injunction, Judge Thurston found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, and that the threat of constitutional violations justified immediate court intervention. “Violations of the Fourth Amendment show an irreparable harm that supports a request for injunctive relief,” the court noted, referencing long-standing Ninth Circuit precedent .
Judge Thurston also provisionally certified two classes: the “Suspicionless Stop Class” and the “Warrantless Arrest Class.” These designations ensure that all individuals in the Eastern District of California who are at risk of being subjected to the challenged practices will be protected by the court’s order.
“This is a major victory for civil rights in California,” said Bree Bernwanger, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California. “Today’s order affirms the dignity and constitutional rights of all people. Border Patrol must end their illegal stop and arrest practices now.”
The lawsuit was brought by the United Farm Workers (UFW) union and five individual residents of Kern County who were detained or threatened during the January raids. According to sworn declarations filed in court, Border Patrol agents smashed car windows, dragged passengers from vehicles, and handcuffed individuals—all without probable cause or proper documentation.
One plaintiff, a farmworker with legal work authorization, testified that she now lives in constant fear. “Gabriela feels anxiety and fear that she will be subjected to Border Patrol’s unlawful practices when Border Patrol follows through on its threat to bring ‘Operation Return to Sender’ to her community in Fresno,” the court filing reads .
UFW President Teresa Romero condemned the operation and praised the court’s ruling: “This order rightfully upholds the law. Border Patrol can’t just wade into communities snatching up hardworking people without due process, just for being brown and working class. We will continue to fight together for the civil rights of every farm worker and every immigrant community.”
In a media statement issued after the raids, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) described “Operation Return to Sender” as focused on drug traffickers, noncitizen criminals, and members of transnational criminal organizations. However, the agency’s own data showed that almost none of the individuals arrested had any known criminal history prior to the encounter, and only one had a prior removal order.
CBP reported that the nationalities of those arrested ranged from Mexico and Central America to Peru and China. Although the agency cited a handful of serious charges—including one person with a sex offense warrant—it did not dispute the plaintiffs’ claim that most individuals had no such records and were targeted based on race or perceived occupation .
The ruling sets a significant precedent for the protection of constitutional rights during immigration enforcement operations in the U.S. interior. It also limits how far federal agencies can go in executing mass deportation sweeps, especially when those efforts appear to circumvent legal standards.
“All residents of the Eastern District of California are entitled to live their lives without fear that federal agents will indiscriminately assault and arrest them based on the color of their skin or their perceived occupation,” said Franco Muzzio, a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters, which is co-counsel on the case.
The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU Foundations of Northern California, Southern California, and San Diego & Imperial Counties, along with private law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.
As the case moves forward, the preliminary injunction ensures that constitutional protections remain intact for residents of the Eastern District of California—a region that encompasses some of the most vulnerable and vital immigrant communities in the state. For the plaintiffs, the ruling is not only a legal victory, but also a measure of protection from an enforcement regime many describe as racially biased, traumatizing, and unlawful.
