Ninth Circuit lets Border Patrol continue immigration stops in California

The United Farm Workers of American claims Border Patrol relied on racial profiling rather than reasonable suspicion of violating immigration laws in a massive sweep of nearly 200 agricultural workers in 2025.(CN) — A Ninth Circuit panel dealt a setback to an agricultural workers’ union on Monday after it lifted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Border Patrol agents from detaining people without reasonable suspicion they violated immigration laws.U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston, a Joe Biden appointee, imposed the preliminary injunction in April 2025. But the Department of Homeland Security, arguing the United Farm Workers of America didn’t have standing to pursue its class action challenging sweeps in California’s Central Valley to detain and arrest farm workers in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.Siding with the government, the three-judge panel determined in their 4-page-ruling “the district court considered only plaintiffs’ allegations of past harm. Although past harm may support standing to seek damages, it does not, on its own, establish standing to seek prospective injunctive relief."The United Farm Workers also needed to show impending future injury for a preliminary injunction, the panel ruled, finding no traction to the union’s claims during oral arguments that the department’s practice of routinely violating its clients’ Fourth Amendment rights was evidence of future injury.“We agree and remand to the district court for the limited purpose of addressing standing,” the three-judge panel wrote, siding with the federal government. “The district court considered only plaintiffs’ allegations of past harm. Although past harm may support standing to seek damages, it does not, on its own, establish standing to seek prospective injunctive relief.”While the Ninth Circuit’s order lifts the preliminary injunction, it does not affect the plaintiffs’ underlying claims.“Without assurance of standing, we lift the preliminary injunction, but if new allegations of harm arise during the pendency of this remand, nothing precludes the district court from considering additional requests for relief,” the Ninth Circuit panel wrote.The Border Patrol’s sweeping immigration operation, dubbed Operation Return to Sender, hit Kern County, California, and the surrounding areas frequented by agricultural workers between Jan. 7-9 last year — just a few days before Donald Trump took office for a second term.In their complaint, the United Farm Workers describe the operation as a fishing expedition that dispensed with reasonable suspicion and relied on racial profiling instead. They say the operation swept up nearly 200 people in an unlawful dragnet in an attempt to get as many people to voluntarily deport themselves back to Mexico.The union also says the Border Patrol agents arrested and bussed them to a station in El Centro, California, without regard to probable cause of flight risk. Among the 40 people who were sent back to Mexico, most had lived in the United States for years, they say.The unanimous panel included Senior U.S. Circuit Judge Mary Schroeder, a Jimmy Carter appointee; U.S. Circuit Judge Morgan Christen, a Barack Obama appointee; and U.S. Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest, a Trump appointee.The University of California, Davis estimates that there are about 900,000 agriculture workers in California annually. The vast majority are Latino.Spokespersons for the government did not respond to requests for comment. Representatives from the United Farm Workers and the American Civil Liberties Union, also representing the plaintiffs, did not respond to requests for comment either.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads