A federal judge has issued a ruling that severely restricts U.S. Border Patrol operations across California, focusing particularly on racial profiling and unlawful immigration sweeps. This came after a lawsuit filed by the ACLU challenging a three-day sweep conducted in January by the El Centro Border Patrol. The operation, which targeted day laborers and farmworkers in Kern County, sparked outrage for its violation of constitutional rights.
U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Thurston’s ruling prohibits Border Patrol agents from stopping individuals without a clear and reasonable suspicion of immigration violations. In her words, “You just can’t walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers.’” The injunction applies to a wide region of California, including the Central Valley, and halts similar operations until the case proceeds through the courts.
The ACLU’s lawsuit, backed by the United Farm Workers, highlights how Border Patrol agents indiscriminately detained individuals, many of whom had no criminal or immigration history. Despite claims by Chief Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino that the operation focused on people with criminal backgrounds, evidence revealed that 77 out of 78 detainees had no such history.
The judge’s ruling underscores the importance of the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. California Attorney General Rob Bonta also weighed in, asserting that the injunction aligns with established law. “You can’t just indiscriminately stop people and search them,” he said in response to the ruling.
In addition to halting these aggressive operations, the injunction requires Border Patrol agents to document each stop and submit reports within 60 days, a mandate that government attorneys have criticized as burdensome. However, Judge Thurston was firm in her position, stating that agents are already required to report arrests and questioning why this would be a significant challenge.
The ruling is particularly significant in light of testimonies from individuals detained during the January sweep, who described abusive actions by Border Patrol agents. Reports included accounts of agents slashing tires, physically manhandling detainees, and using racial slurs. While Border Patrol attorneys argued these actions were isolated, Judge Thurston countered that the evidence pointed to widespread misconduct.
Despite efforts to retrain agents on Fourth Amendment principles, as stated by government attorneys, Judge Thurston questioned the effectiveness of this training, given that Border Patrol agents are already instructed on constitutional rights at the academy level. As the case moves forward, the court is also requiring proof that agents involved in future operations have received proper training on these new rules.
The decision is a victory for immigrant rights advocates who view it as a powerful reminder that immigration enforcement cannot be carried out based on racial profiling or without proper legal justification. The ACLU’s Bree Bernwanger emphasized the importance of the ruling, stating, “Law enforcement agents—including immigration—cannot stop you or detain you because of the color of your skin.”
In a related development, Border Patrol agents recently conducted another sweep in Pomona, where they detained several day laborers outside a Home Depot. Although federal officials defended the operation as targeting a specific individual with an active arrest warrant, witnesses and advocates argue that the raid was another example of racial profiling.
The case continues to unfold, with the judge’s ruling serving as a crucial step in challenging racial discrimination within U.S. immigration enforcement practices.
