Immigrant advocacy groups in Maryland filed a lawsuit Thursday against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), alleging that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducted warrantless arrests as part of a recent enforcement operation. The lawsuit, led by We Are CASA, the National Immigration Project, the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, and the ACLU of Maryland, seeks a preliminary injunction to block ICE’s practice of making arrests without prior judicial warrants.
The legal challenge follows an ICE enforcement operation in Virginia and Maryland last month, which resulted in the arrest of more than 1,300 people over two weeks. The operation targeted individuals described by DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin as including sexual assailants, kidnappers, drunk drivers, robbers, and gang members. Mullin stated in a release that the operation prioritized American citizens’ safety over the interests of undocumented immigrants, framing the arrests as a response to sanctuary policies in the two states.
ICE and DHS did not immediately respond to requests for comment regarding the lawsuit.
Background: Legal and Political Context
The lawsuit centers on allegations that ICE agents violated constitutional protections by conducting arrests without warrants, a practice critics argue undermines due process. The plaintiffs argue that such tactics discourage immigrant communities from cooperating with law enforcement or reporting crimes, citing concerns over fear of deportation.
In contrast, DHS officials have defended the operation, asserting that it targeted individuals with serious criminal records. Mullin’s statement emphasized that the arrests were part of a broader effort to enforce immigration laws in states with policies limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The operation’s scale—1,300 arrests in two weeks—has drawn both praise from immigration hardliners and criticism from advocacy groups.
Nationwide Scrutiny of ICE Enforcement
The Maryland lawsuit is part of a broader pattern of legal challenges to ICE enforcement tactics. In Minneapolis, observer Michael Khalili halted his documentation of ICE activities after reporting increased scrutiny from federal agents, including the revocation of his Global Entry status and threats of criminal charges for following ICE vehicles. Khalili, who had documented ICE operations for months, cited family safety concerns after 15 Minnesota activists were indicted in June on charges including conspiracy to impede an officer—a case that included allegations of following ICE vehicles across state lines.
Khalili’s experience reflects growing tensions between immigrant rights observers and federal enforcement agencies. His revoked Global Entry status was later reinstated after media inquiries, raising questions about whether such actions were retaliatory. The indictments in Minnesota have further intensified debates over the boundaries of free speech and lawful observation of law enforcement activities.
Policy and Legal Implications
The lawsuit in Maryland could set a legal precedent regarding ICE’s arrest authority and the use of warrants in immigration enforcement. Legal experts note that the case may hinge on interpretations of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and recent Supreme Court rulings on immigration enforcement.
Advocacy groups argue that warrantless arrests disproportionately affect undocumented immigrants who lack legal representation, while federal officials contend that such measures are necessary to remove individuals who pose public safety risks. The outcome of the lawsuit could influence future ICE operations and state-local cooperation policies on immigration enforcement.