A federal judge in California ruled Wednesday that U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents violated a prior court order restricting warrantless immigration arrests during an enforcement operation in a Sacramento Home Depot parking lot last year.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston found that agents detained individuals without the required reasonable suspicion and ordered Border Patrol agents across California's Eastern District to document the basis of any future immigration stops.
The 63-page ruling followed a review of video footage and records from the July 2025 operation.
Thurston wrote that agents relied on "eleven, virtually identical" Department of Homeland Security forms and used "unsupported assumptions, hunches and generalizations" about day laborers rather than individualized assessments.
The decision builds on a preliminary injunction Thurston issued in April 2025 in a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups.
That order found a "pattern and practice of warrantless arrests" and barred stops without reasonable suspicion that a person was in the country unlawfully, as well as arrests without probable cause of flight risk.
In the Sacramento operation, agents targeted day laborers gathered in a Home Depot parking lot.
Thurston said the actions did not meet Fourth Amendment standards, which require specific, objective justification for stops rather than broad profiles.
Under the new order, agents in the Eastern District of California must create detailed, signed records explaining the reasoning and circumstances behind each stop or arrest.
The ruling applies in that district, which includes much of California's Central Valley and inland regions extending to the Oregon state line.
Similar legal challenges have emerged in other parts of the country as immigration enforcement has expanded. Federal judges in Oregon, Colorado, and Washington, D.C., have issued comparable restrictions on warrantless immigration arrests.
Civil rights groups have argued that some enforcement operations rely on broad characteristics that amount to racial profiling.
They have also criticized the use of administrative warrants — documents signed by agency officials rather than judges — particularly in cases involving entry into homes.
In February, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., described such warrants as a "permission slip" to bypass Fourth Amendment protections.
The Department of Homeland Security has defended their use in certain cases involving individuals with final removal orders. At his confirmation hearing, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said agents should generally obtain judicial warrants before entering private property.
Jim Thomas ✉
Jim Thomas is a writer based in Indiana. He holds a bachelor's degree in Political Science, a law degree from U.I.C. Law School, and has practiced law for more than 20 years.
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.