Chief Judge Sarah Morrison found that defendants have “authorized a widespread and persistent pattern of illegal warrantless arrests in Ohio” in a class action lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Ohio and immigrant rights groups. However, the dismissal states that Plaintiffs did not establish that they presented an imminent risk of future unlawful arrests in Ohio, leading the judge to deny the motion for a preliminary injunction.
What changed
The ACLU of Ohio, CRIS, ABLE, along with local co-counsel, filed the class action complaint on March 18, 2026. The lawsuit seeks class-action status to represent all people arrested in Ohio for immigration violations without a warrant since April 2025. The court will decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction to halt warrantless arrests that don’t include an immediate assessment of escape risk while the broader lawsuit continues.
Plaintiffs presented evidence to Judge Morrison during a three-day preliminary injunction hearing in early June. The judge’s Friday ruling acknowledged systematic violations of federal law but stopped short of ordering ICE to cease the contested arrest practices.
Why it matters
Judge Morrison’s finding that ICE authorized “a widespread and persistent pattern of illegal warrantless arrests” provides critical binding precedent in the Southern District of Ohio on what constitutes an unlawful warrantless arrest under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Immigration practitioners in Ohio can cite this federal district court finding when challenging ICE arrests that lacked either a judicial warrant signed by a judge or an administrative warrant with proper flight-risk assessment.
However, the denial of the preliminary injunction means no class-wide relief has been granted—yet. The judge apparently concluded that even though the arrests violated law, the plaintiffs did not establish an imminent risk of future violations. This split decision creates uncertainty: the judge acknowledged the illegality but declined to stop the practice going forward, leaving practitioners to continue defending individual clients case-by-case rather than relying on a blanket order.
Levenson noted that federal agents are “wantonly conducting haphazard arrests in violation of the clear dictates of the Immigration and Nationality Act”, suggesting further appeals or motions may follow.
Way forward
-
If you represent someone arrested by ICE in the Southern District of Ohio: Use Judge Morrison’s finding of a “widespread and persistent pattern of illegal warrantless arrests” as persuasive authority in bond hearings, cancellation of removal cases, or motions to suppress evidence derived from unlawful arrest.
-
Document arrest circumstances closely: Whether the officer had a judicial warrant (signed by a judge), an administrative warrant (signed by ICE), or neither. The ruling clarifies that absence of either, without documented flight risk, may violate the INA.
-
Monitor for appeal: The case continues on the merits despite the denied preliminary injunction. Watch for developments from ACLU of Ohio or media coverage of next steps; a class certification decision or summary judgment ruling could shift the landscape.
-
Stay current on local practice: While this Southern District of Ohio ruling is binding in that district, practitioners in other Ohio districts should verify whether similar challenges are pending locally.
Disclaimer
This article is not legal advice and does not constitute a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney. Immigration law is complex and rapidly changing; policy can shift without notice. Verify all information against the primary court decision and consult a qualified immigration attorney before taking action on any client matter.