When Victor Cruz Gomez finally opened his front door after three weeks of self-imposed isolation, he was stepping into a different legal landscape. The 56-year-old construction worker and grandfather had been so traumatized by his warrantless arrest and detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents that his family lived in constant fear. But in a groundbreaking decision that could reshape immigration enforcement across the country, U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from making warrantless arrests in Oregon unless there is a risk of escape. Judge Kasubhai granted class-action status to a lawsuit filed by Cruz Gomez and M-J-M-A, allowing them to represent all Oregonians at risk of warrantless arrest by ICE without an assessment of flight risk. Cruz Gomez testified about the trauma caused by his warrantless arrest and detention, saying, “We went three weeks without even opening the door to the house because of the fear we were feeling.”[1][3]
This isn’t just a legal victory for two plaintiffs. It’s a constitutional reckoning that challenges how federal immigration authorities conduct enforcement operations—and it comes at a critical moment when ICE arrests in Oregon have exploded by nearly 8,000% compared to the previous year.
Key Takeaways
- Historic injunction issued: Federal judge prohibits ICE from making warrantless arrests in Oregon without probable cause that someone will flee, marking a major constitutional protection for immigrant communities
- Class-action status granted: The ruling allows two plaintiffs to represent all Oregonians facing similar warrantless detention, potentially affecting thousands of residents
- Dramatic enforcement surge: ICE arrests in Oregon skyrocketed from 113 in 2024 to over 1,100 in 2025—a staggering 1,400% increase that raised serious due process concerns
- “Arrest first, justify later” practices exposed: Court testimony revealed ICE agents operated under daily quotas, targeted geographic areas rather than individuals, and created warrants after detentions occurred
- Severe psychological impact documented: Plaintiff testimony described families too afraid to leave their homes for weeks, requiring therapy to manage trauma from warrantless arrests
The Constitutional Crisis: When Immigration Enforcement Violates Due Process
The case that landed before Judge Kasubhai exposed a troubling pattern in how ICE conducts immigration enforcement. During what agents called “Operation Black Rose,” federal authorities deployed surveillance technology to identify what they termed “target rich” locations—essentially casting a wide net over entire geographic areas rather than pursuing specific individuals with judicial warrants.[2]
The numbers tell a stark story. ICE arrests in Oregon jumped from 113 in 2024 to over 1,100 in 2025. That’s not just an increase—it’s a 1,400% surge over prior months and a jaw-dropping 7,900% increase over the prior year.[2][3] When enforcement numbers spike that dramatically, it raises immediate questions about whether constitutional protections are being maintained or abandoned in pursuit of arrest quotas.
What the Court Uncovered About ICE Operations
Government agents testified under oath about practices that should concern anyone who values constitutional rights, regardless of their views on immigration policy. According to court testimony, ICE agents:
- Operated under daily quotas requiring eight arrests per day
- Targeted geographic areas instead of specific individuals with warrants
- Created administrative warrants after people were already detained
- Used surveillance technology to identify locations with concentrations of potential targets[2]
This “arrest first, justify later” approach fundamentally reverses how law enforcement is supposed to work in a constitutional democracy. The Fourth Amendment exists precisely to prevent government agents from detaining people without judicial oversight—a protection our founders considered essential to preventing tyranny.
Judge Kasubhai didn’t mince words about what he observed. He described ICE agents’ actions in Oregon—including drawing guns while detaining people for civil immigration violations—as “violent and brutal.”[1] These aren’t criminal arrests for violent offenses. Immigration violations are civil matters, yet agents were treating people like dangerous criminals without the warrant protections that would apply in criminal investigations.
“Due process calls for those who have great power to exercise great restraint. That is the bedrock of a democratic republic founded on this great constitution. I think we’re losing that.” — U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai[1]
The Human Cost: Cruz Gomez’s Story Reveals Immigration Enforcement Trauma
Behind every legal argument and constitutional principle are real people whose lives are upended by warrantless arrests. Victor Cruz Gomez’s experience illustrates why this case matters far beyond legal theory.
Cruz Gomez is not the stereotype some might imagine when they hear “ICE detention.” He’s a 56-year-old construction worker who has lived in the United States since 1999—more than a quarter century. He’s a grandfather. He had a valid work permit and a pending visa application when ICE agents arrested him without a warrant.[1][3]
Despite having legal authorization to work in this country, Cruz Gomez was detained for three weeks. The psychological impact was devastating—not just for him, but for his entire family.
Three Weeks Behind a Closed Door
In his testimony to the court, Cruz Gomez described a level of fear that most Americans can barely imagine. “We went three weeks without even opening the door to the house because of the fear we were feeling,” he told Judge Kasubhai.[3]
Think about that for a moment. Three weeks without opening your front door. Three weeks of your children asking why they can’t go outside. Three weeks of wondering if federal agents might return at any moment to take you away again.
The trauma didn’t end when Cruz Gomez was released. He began seeing a therapist to manage the fear and anxiety caused by the incident.[3] This is the hidden cost of warrantless immigration enforcement—the psychological wounds inflicted on families who live in constant fear of separation.
The ripple effects include:
- 🏠 Social isolation as families avoid normal activities
- 😰 Chronic anxiety requiring mental health treatment
- 👨👩👧👦 Family disruption affecting children’s sense of security
- 💼 Economic impact when workers fear leaving home for jobs
- 🤝 Community breakdown as neighbors retreat from civic participation
M-J-M-A’s Experience: Violence During Operation Black Rose
The second named plaintiff, identified in court documents as M-J-M-A, experienced a different but equally troubling encounter with ICE enforcement. She’s a farmworker who was detained during the October 30 Woodburn sweep that agents labeled Operation Black Rose.[3]
Her detention involved physical violence that should concern anyone who believes law enforcement should use minimal force, especially in civil matters. ICE agents broke the driver’s side window of the vehicle she was in, unlocked the doors, and punched her nephew while she watched.[3]
Again, this wasn’t a criminal arrest for a violent crime. This was a civil immigration detention—yet it involved breaking windows and physical assault. The force used seems wildly disproportionate to the civil nature of immigration violations.
By granting class-action status to the lawsuit filed by Cruz Gomez and M-J-M-A, Judge Kasubhai recognized that their experiences weren’t isolated incidents. They represent a pattern affecting potentially thousands of Oregonians who face the same risk of warrantless arrest without any assessment of whether they might flee.[2][3]
The Legal Framework: Why Warrants Matter in Immigration Enforcement
Some might wonder: why does ICE need warrants? Isn’t immigration enforcement different from criminal law enforcement?
The answer gets to the heart of constitutional protections that apply to everyone on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. While immigration violations are civil rather than criminal matters, that doesn’t mean the Constitution doesn’t apply.
The Flight Risk Requirement
Even ICE’s own policies recognize the importance of warrants. Acting ICE head Todd Lyons issued an administrative memo stating that agents should not make arrests without administrative warrants unless probable cause of flight risk exists.[1]
The problem? Evidence presented in court showed that Oregon ICE agents systematically violated this directive. They weren’t assessing flight risk before making arrests—they were arresting people and creating justifications afterward.[2]
This matters because administrative warrants serve crucial functions:
✅ Judicial oversight ensures arrests are based on evidence, not quotas
✅ Individualized assessment prevents dragnet operations targeting entire communities
✅ Flight risk evaluation ensures enforcement focuses on those likely to evade proceedings
✅ Documentation creates accountability for law enforcement actions
✅ Due process protection upholds constitutional principles for everyone
When agents skip these steps and operate under daily arrest quotas instead, enforcement becomes arbitrary. People get swept up not because they pose a flight risk or public safety threat, but because agents need to hit their numbers.
Judge Kasubhai’s Ruling: What the Preliminary Injunction Means
The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai establishes clear boundaries for ICE enforcement in Oregon. The ruling prohibits ICE agents from making warrantless arrests except when there is probable cause to believe an individual is likely to flee the scene.[1]
This is a significant departure from the practices exposed during Operation Black Rose. Instead of targeting “target rich” geographic areas and working to meet daily quotas, ICE agents in Oregon must now:
- Obtain administrative warrants before making arrests
- Demonstrate probable cause that someone poses a flight risk if arrested without a warrant
- Conduct individualized assessments rather than area-based sweeps
- Follow due process requirements that protect constitutional rights
Class-Action Status Expands Protection
Perhaps equally important, Judge Kasubhai granted class-action status to the lawsuit. This means Cruz Gomez and M-J-M-A can represent all Oregonians who face the risk of warrantless arrest by ICE without proper assessment of flight risk.[2][3]
Class-action status transforms this from a case about two individuals into a systemic challenge to ICE enforcement practices. Any Oregonian who might face warrantless detention now has the protection of this preliminary injunction—potentially affecting thousands of immigrant community members across the state.
Regional Precedent: Oregon Joins Growing Movement for Constitutional Enforcement
If the preliminary injunction stands, Oregon will join Washington, D.C. and Colorado in prohibiting ICE’s practice of warrantless immigration arrests.[2][3] This creates a growing regional precedent that could influence courts and policymakers in other states.
The pattern is clear: when federal judges examine ICE enforcement practices closely, they’re finding constitutional violations that require judicial intervention. This isn’t about preventing immigration enforcement—it’s about ensuring that enforcement respects the constitutional protections that define American democracy.
What This Means for Other States
Courts in other jurisdictions are watching Oregon’s case closely. The evidence presented about Operation Black Rose—the quotas, the geographic targeting, the post-arrest warrant creation—provides a roadmap for challenging similar practices elsewhere.
States with large immigrant populations may see similar legal challenges if ICE continues warrantless enforcement operations. The constitutional principles at stake aren’t limited to Oregon. The Fourth Amendment applies nationwide, and the due process concerns Judge Kasubhai articulated resonate far beyond the Pacific Northwest.
For communities in upstate New York and the Mohawk Valley, this ruling offers important lessons. Immigration enforcement affects working families in Utica, Rome, and throughout Oneida County. When federal agents operate without proper warrants and judicial oversight, constitutional protections erode for everyone—regardless of immigration status.
The Broader Implications: Constitutional Rights and Immigration Policy
This case highlights a fundamental tension in how America approaches immigration enforcement. We can have robust border security and immigration enforcement while still respecting constitutional rights—but only if we’re willing to insist on proper procedures.
The practices exposed in Oregon—daily quotas, geographic targeting, post-arrest warrant creation—represent shortcuts that undermine constitutional protections. They’re also counterproductive from an enforcement perspective. When ICE sweeps up people with valid work permits and pending visa applications, like Cruz Gomez, it doesn’t enhance public safety or address legitimate enforcement priorities.
Progressive Solutions That Respect Rights and Security
There’s a better path forward that balances enforcement with constitutional protections:
🔹 Warrant requirements ensure judicial oversight while allowing targeted enforcement
🔹 Flight risk assessments focus resources on people likely to evade proceedings
🔹 Community policing approaches build trust instead of fear
🔹 Prosecutorial discretion prioritizes serious threats over working families
🔹 Legal pathways address the root causes that drive unauthorized immigration
Judge Kasubhai’s ruling doesn’t prevent ICE from doing its job. It requires agents to do their job constitutionally—with warrants, individualized assessments, and respect for due process.
What Happens Next: The Path Forward for Immigration Rights in Oregon
The preliminary injunction is an important victory, but the legal battle isn’t over. ICE and the federal government can appeal the ruling, and the case will continue through the court system.
Meanwhile, the injunction remains in effect, providing immediate protection for Oregon’s immigrant communities. ICE agents operating in the state must now obtain warrants before making arrests, unless they can demonstrate probable cause that someone poses a flight risk.
Monitoring Compliance and Enforcement
The real test will be whether ICE complies with the injunction and how courts respond if violations occur. Immigration rights organizations and legal advocates will need to monitor enforcement practices closely and document any attempts to circumvent the ruling.
Community members can help by:
- 📱 Documenting encounters with ICE agents and reporting warrantless arrests
- 🤝 Supporting immigrant neighbors through know-your-rights trainings
- 📞 Contacting representatives to demand constitutional enforcement practices
- 💰 Funding legal defense organizations that challenge unlawful detention
- 🗣️ Speaking out against quota-based enforcement and geographic targeting
Lessons for Advocates and Policymakers Nationwide
The Oregon case provides a blueprint for challenging unconstitutional immigration enforcement elsewhere. The key elements that made this case successful include:
Strong plaintiff testimony that humanized the constitutional violations and demonstrated real harm. Cruz Gomez’s account of three weeks behind a closed door gave the court a visceral understanding of the trauma caused by warrantless arrests.
Compelling evidence from government agents themselves about quotas, geographic targeting, and post-arrest warrant creation. When ICE agents testify under oath about these practices, it’s hard for the government to deny systemic problems.
Clear constitutional framework connecting immigration enforcement to Fourth Amendment protections. The lawsuit didn’t argue against enforcement—it argued for constitutional enforcement.
Class-action approach that transforms individual cases into systemic challenges affecting entire communities.
Policy Reforms Worth Fighting For
Beyond litigation, policymakers should consider reforms that address the root problems exposed in Oregon:
✔️ Ban enforcement quotas that incentivize arrests over public safety
✔️ Require judicial warrants for immigration arrests except in exigent circumstances
✔️ Mandate flight risk assessments before any warrantless detention
✔️ Prohibit geographic targeting in favor of individualized enforcement
✔️ Create accountability mechanisms for agents who violate constitutional rights
✔️ Establish trauma support for families affected by immigration enforcement
Conclusion: Constitutional Rights Aren’t Negotiable—Even in Immigration Enforcement
Judge Kasubhai’s ruling in Oregon represents more than a legal victory for two plaintiffs. It’s a reminder that constitutional protections apply to everyone on U.S. soil, regardless of immigration status. When federal agents operate under daily quotas, target entire geographic areas, and create warrants after arrests occur, they’re not just violating policy—they’re violating the Constitution.
Victor Cruz Gomez shouldn’t have spent three weeks too afraid to open his front door. M-J-M-A shouldn’t have watched agents break windows and assault her nephew during a civil immigration detention. These experiences reflect a breakdown in the constitutional restraints that separate a democratic republic from authoritarianism.
The preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai prohibiting warrantless ICE arrests in Oregon unless there is a risk of escape represents an important step toward restoring those constitutional protections. By granting class-action status to Cruz Gomez and M-J-M-A, the court recognized that this isn’t about two individuals—it’s about whether we’ll uphold due process for entire communities.
As Judge Kasubhai observed, “Due process calls for those who have great power to exercise great restraint. That is the bedrock of a democratic republic founded on this great constitution.”[1]
Take Action: What You Can Do
Whether you live in Oregon, upstate New York, or anywhere else in America, this case affects you. Constitutional protections erode gradually, one shortcut at a time. Here’s how you can help defend them:
- Support immigration legal defense organizations that challenge unconstitutional enforcement
- Contact your congressional representatives and demand warrant requirements for immigration arrests
- Attend local government meetings and advocate for sanctuary policies that protect constitutional rights
- Participate in know-your-rights trainings and share information with immigrant neighbors
- Document and report any warrantless immigration arrests in your community
- Vote for candidates who prioritize constitutional rights and immigration reform
- Speak out when you see enforcement practices that violate due process
The fight for constitutional immigration enforcement is far from over, but Oregon’s example shows that courts will intervene when federal agents cross constitutional lines. Now it’s up to communities, advocates, and policymakers to ensure those protections extend nationwide—and that families like Cruz Gomez’s never again spend weeks too terrified to open their own front doors.
References
[1] Oregon Ice Agents Law Lab B2914311 – https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/oregon-ice-agents-law-lab-b2914311.html
[2] Innovation Law Lab Seeks Emergency Order Halt Warrantless Ice Arrests Oregon – https://innovationlawlab.org/press-release/innovation-law-lab-seeks-emergency-order-halt-warrantless-ice-arrests-oregon
[3] Oregon Immigrant Rights Attorneys Sue Stop Warrantless Ice Arrests – https://www.opb.org/article/2026/01/13/oregon-immigrant-rights-attorneys-sue-stop-warrantless-ice-arrests/
