Judge Limits ICE Arrests in Oregon, Citing Due Process Concerns
- Immigration agents in Oregon will now face limitations on their authority to make arrests without a warrant, following a ruling issued on February 4, 2026, by U.S.
- The ruling stems from a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by Innovation Law Lab, a Portland-based nonprofit, on behalf of immigrants who allege they were detained without proper justification...
- The core concern raised in the lawsuit, and addressed by the judge’s order, is the practice of “arrest first, justify later,” as described in court documents.
U.S. Immigration agents in Oregon will now face limitations on their authority to make arrests without a warrant, following a ruling issued on , by U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai. The injunction stipulates that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers may only make warrantless arrests if they can demonstrate a reasonable belief that the individual is likely to flee.
The ruling stems from a proposed class-action lawsuit brought by Innovation Law Lab, a Portland-based nonprofit, on behalf of immigrants who allege they were detained without proper justification during increased immigration enforcement operations in the state. Judge Kasubhai granted class-action status, potentially extending the impact of the injunction to a broader group of individuals in similar situations.
The core concern raised in the lawsuit, and addressed by the judge’s order, is the practice of “arrest first, justify later,” as described in court documents. This refers to instances where individuals were apprehended by ICE agents without a warrant and without a clear indication that they posed a flight risk. The judge’s decision aligns Oregon with Colorado and Washington, D.C., which already have similar restrictions in place regarding warrantless ICE arrests. A related lawsuit is also pending in Minnesota.
While the ruling doesn’t entirely prohibit warrantless arrests, it introduces a crucial safeguard. ICE agents must now articulate a specific reason to believe an individual will attempt to evade apprehension before proceeding with an arrest without a warrant. This requirement is consistent with a recent memo issued by Todd Lyons, the acting head of ICE, which emphasized the need for administrative arrest warrants unless probable cause exists to suspect flight.
However, the lawsuit highlighted that, despite the memo, agents in Oregon had continued to make arrests without adhering to these guidelines. Testimony presented in court included that of Victor Cruz Gamez, a 56-year-old grandfather who has resided in the U.S. Since 1999. Mr. Cruz Gamez recounted being detained for approximately three weeks despite possessing a valid work permit and a pending visa application. He described being pulled over while driving home from work, and despite presenting his documentation, he was taken into custody and held in a detention center in Washington state before being temporarily released pending deportation proceedings.
Judge Kasubhai’s assessment of the agents’ conduct was particularly critical. He characterized some of the arrests as “violent and brutal,” noting instances where firearms were drawn during civil immigration detentions. He expressed concern that these actions violated due process rights and lacked the restraint expected from those wielding significant power. The judge specifically cited instances where individuals were forcibly stopped, detained, and handcuffed, deeming the level of force excessive and “defying human decency.”
The judge’s ruling isn’t intended to impede legitimate immigration enforcement, but rather to ensure that it is conducted lawfully and with respect for individual rights. He emphasized that the requirement to demonstrate a flight risk is a fundamental aspect of due process. The injunction mandates that ICE officers document, in narrative form, all warrantless arrests made in Oregon, detailing the specific evidence supporting their determination that the individual was likely to flee.
Stephen Manning, executive director of Innovation Law Lab, expressed optimism that the ruling would serve as a catalyst for broader change. He stated that the case is fundamentally about holding the government accountable to following the law. The preliminary injunction will remain in effect as the lawsuit progresses, potentially leading to a more permanent resolution regarding ICE’s arrest practices in Oregon.
The Department of Homeland Security, the parent agency of ICE, has not yet issued a public comment in response to the ruling. The government is currently appealing similar rulings in Colorado and Washington, D.C., suggesting a potential challenge to the Oregon injunction as well.