A group of former immigration detainees in Oregon has accused federal officials of ignoring a court order that bans warrantless arrests. The plaintiffs claim Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has an “arrest first, ask later” policy, despite a judge’s ruling.
In February, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai prohibited ICE from arresting Oregonians without a warrant and without assessing their flight risk. However, the plaintiffs argue that ICE has not followed this preliminary injunction.
Plaintiffs Allege Non-Compliance
An ICE agent, identified as JG, described the arrest of two witnesses who had previously testified about their detentions. According to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, the warrant was prepared on-site, which goes against the court’s order.
Stephen Manning from the Innovation Law Lab stated, “Anyone looking would say the arrest complies with the law, when in fact nothing complies with the law.”
During the hearing, Judge Kasubhai questioned the credibility of the arrest record, as agent JG admitted to being untruthful. The judge emphasized the significance of this discrepancy, stating, “These aren’t minor discrepancies.”
Dispute Over Arrest Figures
The plaintiffs, a class of Oregon immigrants, claim that these unlawful arrests are part of the Trump administration’s strategy to meet immigration arrest quotas.
Read Also: Berlin Left Party Wins Historic Election in Shift
Between February and July, there were 574 immigration arrests in Oregon, with 504 being noncustodial, according to testimony from the Deportation Data Project. The federal defendants dispute this, arguing that some noncustodial arrests occurred in prisons or jails, where warrants are not required.
The plaintiffs further argue that even when warrants were used, they were often invalid. In some cases, agents had pre-filled warrants, and in others, on-site supervisors approved them, bypassing the standard procedure.
Government’s Defense
The government’s attorney, Ariana Garousi, argued that the case’s scope is limited to warrantless arrests and does not include the validity of warrants. She stated, “Considering all that evidence, we don’t think plaintiffs demonstrated there’s been a violation of the injunction.”
Judge Kasubhai has given both parties a week to submit additional briefing and has not indicated when a decision will be made.
Following the hearing, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Jordan Cunnings, praised the witnesses’ bravery. The four men, all in their 20s and 30s, shared how ICE’s actions disrupted their lives. Despite following immigration laws, they still fear arrest and deportation.
