A Ninth Circuit panel has lifted a preliminary injunction prohibiting Border Patrol agents from detaining people without reasonable suspicion they violated immigration laws, dealing a significant setback to agricultural workers challenging immigration sweeps in California’s Central Valley.
What changed
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston imposed the preliminary injunction in April 2025 following a challenge by the United Farm Workers of America to “Operation Return to Sender.” The Border Patrol operation hit Kern County, California, and surrounding areas frequented by agricultural workers between January 7–9, 2025 — just days before Donald Trump took office for a second term.
The Department of Homeland Security argued the United Farm Workers did not have standing to pursue its class action challenging sweeps to detain and arrest farm workers in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights. The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel determined the district court considered only plaintiffs’ allegations of past harm, and without assurance of standing, the panel lifted the preliminary injunction, though noted that if new allegations of harm arise during the remand, nothing precludes the district court from considering additional requests for relief.
The United Farm Workers described the operation as a fishing expedition that relied on racial profiling instead of reasonable suspicion, sweeping up nearly 200 people in an unlawful dragnet.
Why it matters
The ruling removes an immediate legal barrier to Border Patrol immigration enforcement in California. Even though the injunction is now lifted, the court’s decision turns on standing — a narrow procedural ground — rather than a ruling on the merits of whether the sweeps violated Fourth Amendment rights.
This distinction matters for practitioners and advocates because the court noted that if new allegations of harm arise during the remand, nothing precludes the district court from considering additional requests for relief. The case is not final; the door remains open for the district court to revisit the underlying constitutional claims if the union can present additional evidence of ongoing or future harm by the same enforcement pattern.
For immigration practitioners advising clients in the Ninth Circuit, this ruling clarifies that preliminary injunctions blocking Border Patrol stops require plaintiffs to establish standing based not only on past incidents but on demonstrable risk of future harm. Practitioners should document and preserve evidence of continued sweeps or enforcement patterns for any future injunction requests.
Way forward
-
For practitioners in the Ninth Circuit: If you represent clients swept up in or at risk from Operation Return to Sender or similar sweeps, document specific facts showing ongoing enforcement risk and individual injury to support future standing arguments in the district court.
-
For immigrants in California: If you were detained in the January 2025 sweeps or face similar detention risk in the future, consult with an immigration attorney about whether you may qualify for any class or individual relief once the case remands to district court.
-
Monitor the remand: The case returns to the district court, which may consider renewed preliminary injunction motions if new allegations emerge. Immigration advocates and practitioners should track this case for developments.
-
Verify current enforcement status: While the injunction is lifted, Border Patrol’s ability to conduct stops must still comply with Fourth Amendment reasonable-suspicion requirements under Ninth Circuit precedent. Consult with counsel about your rights if stopped.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes and is not legal advice. Articles.folaform.com is a plain-English policy resource, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and policy changes frequently without notice. You should verify any information against the primary source material linked above and consult with a licensed immigration attorney regarding your specific situation before taking any action based on this article.