Filed Date: May 29, 2018
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about pretextual vehicle stops used to apprehend undocumented noncitizens in the Chicago area; it is also one of several lawsuits in which a federal court of appeals has addressed detention without a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A).
On May 29, 2018, five noncitizens and two nongovernmental organizations filed this putative class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its Acting Director, and the Field Office Director of the ICE Chicago Field Office in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs sued under the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Fourth Amendment. Represented by the ACLU, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and private counsel, they sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.
On May 30, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. They sought to represent a class of all current and future individuals detained after being arrested by ICE without a warrant within the ICE Chicago Field Office’s area of responsibility. The proposed class-wide relief included three permanent injunctions: enjoining ICE from making warrantless arrests without an individualized probable cause determination that the person posed a flight risk; prohibiting ICE from conducting traffic stops absent reasonable suspicion that a specific individual targeted for immigration enforcement was present; and requiring ICE to adopt and document procedures for establishing reasonable suspicion in compliance with the Fourth Amendment.
Alongside the class certification motion, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order. The TRO sought to immediately halt ICE’s practice of conducting warrantless arrests and pretextual traffic stops in the Chicago area while the case was pending. Plaintiffs argued that these enforcement tactics violated the Fourth Amendment and statutory protections under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and asked the court to enjoin ICE from continuing such stops and arrests without individualized probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
On June 27, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, adding the then-Secretary of DHS, Acting Director of ICE, and Field Office Director of the ICE Chicago Field Office as named defendants.
On August 17, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, raising three principal arguments: lack of jurisdiction (claims arise from removal enforcement), organizational lack of standing, and failure to state a claim under the APA (no final agency action and improper federal litigation of immigration enforcement). Before the court ruled, the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 7, 2018, which mooted the August 17 motion.
The Second Amended Complaint alleged that ICE had implemented a policy or widespread practice of conducting warrantless arrests and vehicle stops without individualized reasonable suspicion or probable cause, in violation of the Fourth Amendment and INA, and challenged deficient procedures and documentation affecting class members’ due process rights and access to counsel.
On March 14, 2019, the defendants filed a second motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, renewing their challenges to jurisdiction, standing, and APA compliance. The court denied this motion on January 24, 2020. 435 F. Supp. 3d 880. First, it held that the plaintiffs were not challenging their removability or any removal orders, but rather ICE’s enforcement practices—specifically, warrantless arrests and pretextual vehicle stops—so the jurisdictional bars to judicial review under the Immigration and Nationality Act did not apply. Second, the court found that the organizational plaintiffs had standing because they were forced to divert resources in response to the defendants’ alleged unlawful practices, constituting a cognizable injury traceable to the government and redressable by a favorable decision. Third, it concluded that the plaintiffs adequately alleged a discrete and unlawful agency policy—ICE’s use of warrantless arrests without individualized suspicion—which constituted a final agency action reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court rejected the argument that an arrest decision is not final merely because removal proceedings might follow, holding that the decision to make an arrest is itself final. Finally, it emphasized that the plaintiffs’ claims were procedural and constitutional in nature, and therefore distinct from direct challenges to removability or immigration status.
On July 16, 2020, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey Cummings for settlement negotiations. The court granted final approval of the settlement on February 8, 2022, and the settlement took effect on May 13, 2022, lasting three years. It required: a nationwide broadcast of the new policy, officer training, inclusion of the policy in training, monthly documentation of warrantless arrests, release of arrested class members contrary to the agreement, deferred action reviews for named plaintiffs, and attorneys' fees of $369,939.41.
After the inauguration of the second Trump administration in January 2025, the plaintiffs alleged that ICE resumed making warrantless arrests and pretextual traffic stops in violation of the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs specifically documented incidents involving class members who were stopped and detained without warrants or probable cause, and without proper documentation of reasonable suspicion, as required by the settlement. On March 13, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to enforce the settlement, seeking to compel compliance, produce overdue documentation, release affected class members, and request further monitoring or contempt remedies, and on April 14, 2025, plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the agreement.
In September, the plaintiffs filed a "notice of additional violation of consent decree and request for status conference." The plaintiffs alleged that ICE has engaged in over twenty-five additional violations of the Agreement in connection with “Operation Midway Blitz,” a major on-going immigration enforcement campaign targeting the Chicago area. Later that month, they filed a supplemental notice of violations in which they alleged that ICE dramatically escalated its enforcement in Chicago in violation of the agreement.
Judge Cummings granted the plaintiffs motions in part and denied them in part. The court held that a three year extension of the consent decree was not suitably tailored to address ICE's non-compliance. The consent decree was instead extended by 118 days (February 2, 2026). Judge Cummings ordered ICE to produce to plaintiffs the A numbers of the foreign nationals and corresponding I-213s and I-200s for all foreign nations who were subjected to 1) warrantless arrests or 2) arrests pursuant to administrative warrants that took place in the Northern District of Illinois16 from June 11, 2025 through October 7, 2025. ICE is required to continue to produce data regarding such arrests on the first day of each month until the consent decree expires.
Separately, on or about September 7, 2025, ICE began a significant immigration enforcement action known as Operation Midway Blitz in the ICE’s Chicago Area of Responsibility. ICE officers thereafter intensified their efforts and began arresting hundreds of foreign nationals. On October 17, 2025, ICE filed a motion to extend an upcoming reporting deadline imposed by the opinion. Plaintiffs responded by bringing a cross-motion to place all potential class members identified by the parties prior to October 7, 2025 on an ankle monitor or another Alternative to Detention (“ATD”) pending the resolution of potential violations concerning the class members. The Court granted ICE’s motion for an extension of the reporting deadline, ordered ICE to submit reports of its arrest-related materials on a rolling basis and to respond to plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and ordered the parties to confer regarding potential violations of the Agreement identified by plaintiffs and the relief sought by plaintiffs in their cross-motion.
In its ruling on November 12 and its follow-up written order of November 13, 2025, the Court: (a) ordered the thirteen class members whom the parties agreed had their rights violated under the Agreement be promptly released from detention; (b) determined that ICE had engaged in “repeated, material violations” of the Agreement as evidenced by the forty-six class members whom the parties agreed suffered a violation of their rights when they were arrested; (c) resolved the parties’ dispute over whether the class members were subject to mandatory detention under the INA—and thereby ineligible for relief under the Agreement—by holding that potential class members were not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2) but were instead detained under 8 U.S.C. §1226(a) and eligible for relief so long as they were not subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. §1226(c); and (d) in the exercise of its “discretion to provide any equitable remedies otherwise specified in the Agreement,” ordered ICE to release from detention under ICE’s own ATD program (upon payment of a $1,500 bond) the foreign nationals in the group of 615 who are still in the United States and who are not deemed by ICE to be a “high public safety risk” pending a determination as to whether they are entitled to relief under the Agreement. The Court stayed the release of the prospective class members in this latter group until noon on November 21, 2025, and further stayed the involuntary removal for voluntary departure for these individuals until the next business day after their release from detention.
On November 13, 2025, the defendants filed an emergency motion to stay the court's order extending the consent decree and produce information on arrests. The court denied this motion on November 18, 2025.
The defendants appealed the order extending the consent decree and its order releasing individuals who were not deemed by ICE to be a "high public safety risk" on November 20, 2025. Both decisions were administratively stayed by the Seventh Circuit.
On December 11, 2025, the Seventh Circuit denied the stay or the order granting plaintiffs’ motion to modify the Consent Decree. In regards to the 13 class members and approximately 442 “potential class members” who would be the subject of the November 13 order, Judge Lee, writing for the majority, granted the government's request to stay the November 13 order pending appeal. With regards to the individuals arrested absent a warrant, the court granted the government's motion to stay the November 13 order pending individual violation determinations pursuant to the Consent Decree. 161 F.4th 1048.
On May 5, 2026, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's October 7 order extending the consent decree for 118 days, and affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's November 13 ruling ordering release. 2026 WL 1223250. As to the October 7 order, it reasoned that the district court cited numerous examples of failure to comply and therefore did not abuse its discretion in finding noncompliance, and that the extension was reasonable and narrowly tailored to address that noncompliance. As to the November 13 order, and, in particular, whether the mandatory detention provision of § 1225(b)(2)(A) applied to the petitioners, the court split three ways, with the majority reasoning that the provision applied "only to unadmitted noncitizens seeking lawful entry at our country’s border and ports of entry," and not noncitizens living unlawfully inside the country, an interpretation that "faithfully adheres to each word in the statute, its grammatical structure, and statutory context, while accurately reflecting the statute’s historical background, consistent with the government’s long-standing understanding and application of it." The court therefore affirmed the November 13 order to the extent it ordered the release of class members for whom a determination had been made that they were arrested without a warrant in contravention of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a) and the Consent Decree, but reversed the order to the extent it required the release of “potential class members” or any person who was arrested pursuant to an I-200 warrant (defective or otherwise), which it found to be outside the scope of the Decree. Neither the concurring nor dissenting judge would have reached the analysis of § 1225(b)(2)(A)'s applicability, with the dissenting judge going further to suggest that "the better reading of § 1225 is that the INA’s mandatory detention provision applies to aliens arrested in the interior as well as to those encountered at the border."
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Zoe Van Dyke (11/23/2022)
Victoria Tan (7/9/2025)
Clearinghouse (5/14/2026)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6952165/parties/castanon-nava-v-department-of-homeland-security/
Attorney, Keren Hart
Attorney, Rebecca Kim
Attorney, Michelle T.
Attorney, Mark M.
Attorney, Lori MacKenzie,
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6952165/castanon-nava-v-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated April 20, 2026, 4:19 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Reversing Course on Existing Litigation
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 29, 2018
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
All current and future persons whom ICE arrests or has arrested without having a warrant, within the area of responsibility of the ICE Chicago Field Office, who remain detained.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Mooted before ruling
Defendants
Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Unreasonable search and seizure
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Illinois 1:18-cv-03757
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 25-03050
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Provide antidiscrimination training
Amount Defendant Pays: $369,939.41
Order Duration: 2022 - 2025
Issues
Discrimination Basis:
Immigration/Border:
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Over/Unlawful Detention (facilities)
Policing:
Case Summary of Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/43602/ (last updated 5/14/2026).