ICE Can't Make Warrantless Arrests in Oregon Unless There's Risk of Escape, Judge Rules

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge has delivered a significant check on the power of U.S. immigration agents in Oregon, ruling that they can no longer make warrantless arrests of individuals for civil immigration violations unless there is a clear and immediate risk of escape. The decision sharply curtails a practice critics have labeled "arrest first, justify later."

In a forceful preliminary injunction issued Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai sided with plaintiffs in a proposed class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The ruling addresses so-called "collateral arrests," where agents conducting targeted enforcement operations detain other immigrants they encounter without a judicial or administrative warrant specific to that person.

The Department of Homeland Security, the primary defendant in the case, has not yet issued a public comment on the ruling.

The Ruling's Core Mandate

Judge Kasubhai's order establishes clear, temporary boundaries for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations within Oregon while the lawsuit proceeds. The injunction is a direct response to evidence presented that agents have been conducting sweeps without adhering to constitutional and federal statutory requirements.

• Warrant Requirement: The ruling mandates that ICE agents must possess a warrant to arrest an individual for a civil immigration violation. This can be either a judicial warrant issued by a court or an administrative warrant issued by an ICE supervisor.

• Escape Risk Exception: The sole exception to the warrant requirement is if an agent develops probable cause to believe a person is in the U.S. unlawfully and that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. The burden of proof for this "likelihood of escape" now rests squarely on the agent.

• Targeted Practice: The injunction specifically targets the practice of arresting individuals incidentally during broader enforcement actions, a tactic that has led to detentions based on happenstance rather than specific, pre-vetted information.

A Grandfather's Ordeal: The Human Cost of Enforcement

The daylong hearing was anchored by the powerful testimony of Victor Cruz Gamez, a 56-year-old plaintiff who has lived in the United States since 1999. A grandfather with a valid work permit and a pending visa application, he detailed an experience that highlighted the lawsuit's central claims.

Cruz Gamez testified that in October, he was driving home from work when he was pulled over by immigration agents. Despite presenting his valid driver's license and work permit, he was arrested.

He was first taken to an ICE facility in Portland before being transferred to the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington. For three weeks, he was held in detention and was on the verge of being deported until an attorney intervened and secured his release.

Visibly emotional, Cruz Gamez described the profound impact of the arrest on his family. He recounted through a Spanish interpreter how his wife was terrified, leading them to not open their door for three weeks out of fear. The trauma extended to his grandchildren, one of whom became afraid to go to school.

In a rare moment following the testimony, a lawyer for the federal government approached Cruz Gamez, expressing sorrow for what he and his family had endured.

"Violent and Brutal": The Judge's Scathing Rebuke

Judge Kasubhai did not mince words in his assessment of the evidence presented, describing the actions of agents in Oregon as "violent and brutal." He cited instances where agents drew guns on individuals while detaining them for civil, not criminal, violations.

His primary concern was the erosion of constitutional protections, particularly the right to due process.

"Due process calls for those who have great power to exercise great restraint," Judge Kasubhai stated from the bench. "That is the bedrock of a democratic republic founded on this great constitution. I think we're losing that."

His ruling signals a judicial effort to reassert constitutional limits on executive branch enforcement powers, especially in the context of immigration.

A Pattern of Legal Challenges

Oregon is not the first state to see a judicial challenge to these ICE tactics. The ruling aligns with similar decisions from federal courts in Colorado and Washington, D.C., suggesting a growing legal consensus against the practice of widespread warrantless arrests. The federal government has appealed those prior rulings.

These legal battles have intensified amid the Trump administration's stated goal of mass deportations, which civil rights groups argue has encouraged aggressive enforcement that pushes constitutional boundaries.

• Judicial vs. Administrative Warrants: A key distinction in these cases is the type of warrant. A judicial warrant is signed by a judge and provides legal authority to enter private property. An administrative warrant is an internal agency document, which does not carry the same authority to enter a home but is required for an arrest in non-exigent circumstances under federal law. The lawsuit argues agents in Oregon were often acting without either.

• Internal Directives: The court heard that even ICE's own leadership has acknowledged the proper procedure. In a recent memo, Todd Lyons, the acting head of ICE, reiterated to agents that warrantless arrests are only permissible when there is both probable cause of an immigration violation and a likelihood of escape. The plaintiffs argued this directive was being ignored on the ground.

Implications and the Path Forward

The lawsuit was filed by the Innovation Law Lab, a nonprofit legal organization. Stephen Manning, the group's executive director, said he hopes the case will be a "catalyst for change here in Oregon."

"That is fundamentally what this case is about: asking the government to follow the law," Manning said during the hearing.

The preliminary injunction is not a final resolution of the case, but it imposes immediate constraints on ICE's operations in the state. It will remain in effect as the class-action lawsuit moves forward, which could take months or years.

Given the government's appeals in similar cases, a challenge to Judge Kasubhai's injunction is expected. For now, however, the ruling represents a significant, court-ordered shift in the rules of engagement for immigration enforcement in Oregon, placing a new and heavy emphasis on warrants and due process.