FRESNO–Yesterday, a federal district court ruled that the U.S. Border Patrol violated a prior court order during a July 2025 immigration operation in Sacramento, finding that agents conducted stops without reasonable suspicion and failed to properly document their actions. The court granted a motion to enforce a preliminary injunction in United Farm Workers v. Noem, reinforcing constitutional limits on Border Patrol operations in California’s Eastern District.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston held that Border Patrol’s conduct during the operation failed to comply with the court’s April 2025 preliminary injunction prohibiting stops without individualized reasonable suspicion. In a February hearing on the motion, government attorneys confirmed that Border Patrol agents did not have reasonable suspicion that any particular person targeted in the raid was unlawfully in the country. Instead, Border Patrol agents swarmed a Home Depot and targeted anyone who ran from them. The court emphasized that agents may not rely on generalized assumptions or flight alone to justify detentions. The court also found that Border Patrol’s documentation of the raids was deficient and, in some cases, inaccurate.
“Agents relied on boilerplate narratives and, in multiple instances, other officers modified or doctored reports describing stops and arrests,” said Bree Bernwanger, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Northern California. “The court concluded that these practices violated the requirement to provide specific, individualized facts justifying each stop.”
As a result, the court ordered Border Patrol to take steps to ensure compliance with its prior order, including requiring that each agent personally document the facts supporting any stop and prohibiting agents from relying on generic or copied language without individualized detail.
“This ruling confirms what we have said since Border Patrol first attacked farm workers in and around Bakersfield, Border Patrol cannot round people up just because they are brown, speak Spanish, and work hard,” said United Farm Workers President Teresa Romero. “The court made clear that Border Patrol’s raid on day laborers in Sacramento, like their raid on farm workers near Bakersfield, was unconstitutional. Working people are safer when we stand up together to defend one another.”
The decision stems from a July 17, 2025, operation at a Home Depot in Sacramento where Border Patrol agents detained individuals based on generalized assumptions concerning their immigration status without specific information. The raid was one of a series of operations nationwide called Operation At Large, which employed similar tactics around the country. The court found that prior surveillance of different people at the location and assumptions about occupation based on location do not provide a lawful basis for stops.
“This decision is an important rebuke of Border Patrol’s unlawful practices,” said Jason George, of counsel with Keker, Van Nest & Peters. “The agency tried to justify sweeping, suspicionless stops and then paper over the problems by doctoring their arrest reports. We are pleased that the court saw through their tactics and strengthened requirements to ensure accountability going forward.”
The United Farm Workers and five Kern County residents sued the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Border Patrol in February 2025. The plaintiffs are represented by the ACLU Foundations of Northern California, Southern California, and San Diego & Imperial Counties, and by Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.
Read the order.
Related Content
United Farm Workers, et al. v. Noem, et al.
Stay Informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.