Federal Judge Confirms DHS Violating Its Own Rules in D.C. Immigration Arrests

A federal court delivered a setback to President Donald Trump's deportation initiative on Tuesday, as a judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The court directed the agency to halt warrantless immigration arrests in Washington, D.C., unless probable cause exists, and to provide detailed reports on these actions going forward. DHS officials are also required to ensure all agents understand that arrests must be based on probable cause, not just "reasonable suspicion."

The legal challenge began in August, shortly after the federal government took control of immigration enforcement in D.C. Five plaintiffs sued DHS, claiming that agents were carrying out arrests unlawfully. Federal law permits warrantless immigration arrests only if officers have reason to believe an individual is unlawfully in the U.S. and likely to flee before a warrant can be obtained. The plaintiffs argued that officers often ignored these requirements, failing to verify legal status or assess flight risk. Four of the plaintiffs were arrested without a warrant and later released.

The federal surge, initiated after an executive order declaring a crime emergency in the capital, led to an increase in immigration-related arrests. Despite claims of targeting violent crime, over 80% of the 1,100 people arrested had no prior criminal history. Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S. District Court for D.C. noted that many of these warrantless arrests may have violated the law.

Howells injunction emphasized that DHS has implemented a policy of conducting arrests without probable cause, conflicting with federal law and constitutional principles. DHS had defended its practices by citing its 2022 directive and annual trainings instructing agents to consider escape risk before arrests. However, the court highlighted dozens of cases where arrests occurred without proper inquiry, and DHS communications that confused "reasonable suspicion" with the higher standard of probable cause.

One example cited was a September social media post by DHS labeling the lawsuit claims as "false" and defending arrests based on reasonable suspicion. The post inaccurately suggested this approach was supported by the Supreme Court. DHS officials, including Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin, repeated this misstatement in public statements, reinforcing the agencys confusion over legal standards.

Judge Howell also referenced comments from Chief Border Patrol Agent Gregory Bovino, who described reasonable suspicionnot probable causeas sufficient for immigration arrests. Additionally, an incident involving a former U.S. Attorney being dismissed after advising Bovino on probable cause requirements was noted as evidence of a systematic disregard for legal standards.

The ruling reflects a pattern observed in other courts. In November, a federal judge in Chicago ordered the release of over 600 ICE detainees due to similar failures to establish probable cause, violating federal law and a 2022 consent decree.

These court decisions underscore that many of the methods used in the Trump administrations immigration crackdown may be unlawful and unconstitutional, highlighting the contrast between claims of enforcing the law and the legal violations revealed in practice.

Author: Connor Blake