Case: Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security
1:18-cv-03757 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Filed Date: May 29, 2018
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case about pretextual vehicle stops used to apprehend undocumented noncitizens in the Chicago area; it is 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs sued under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and the Fourth Amendment. Represented by the ACLU, the National Immigrant Justice Center, and private counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting ICE from making warrantless arrests without an individualized probable cause determination that the individual posed a flight risk, as well as attorney’s fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings.
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: (1) enjoining ICE from making warrantless arrests without an individualized probable cause determination that the person posed a flight risk; (2) prohibiting ICE from conducting traffic stops absent reasonable suspicion that a specific individual targeted for immigration enforcement was present; and (3) 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 (TRO). 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 INA, 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: (1) lack of jurisdiction (claims arise from removal enforcement); (2) organizational lack of standing; and (3) 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, the court held that the plaintiffs were not challenging ICE’s 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 INA 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 (i.e., ICE’s use of warrantless arrests without individualized suspicion) which constituted a final agency action reviewable under the APA.
On July 16, 2020, the case was referred to 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. The settlement required ICE to adopt a new policy of documenting the facts and circumstances surrounding a warrantless arrest or vehicle stop in the individual’s arrest documentation. The rest of the terms 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.
Following the beginning of the second Trump administration in January 2025, the plaintiffs claimed that ICE resumed making warrantless arrests and pretextual traffic stops in violation of the settlement agreement. The 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, the 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, the plaintiffs filed a motion to modify the agreement.
In September 2025, the plaintiffs filed a "notice of additional violation of consent decree and request for status conference." The plaintiffs alleged that ICE had engaged in over twenty-five additional violations of the agreement in connection with “Operation Midway Blitz,” a major ongoing 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.
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motions in part and denied them in part, holding 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 (until February 2, 2026). The court ordered ICE to produce to the plaintiffs the numbers of the foreign nationals and corresponding I-213s and I-200s (arresting documentation) for all foreign nationals who were subjected to (1) warrantless arrests or (2) arrests pursuant to administrative warrants that took place in the Northern District of Illinois from June 11, 2025 through October 7, 2025. ICE was required to continue to produce data regarding such arrests on the first day of each month until the consent decree expired.
Separately, on or about September 7, 2025, ICE began a significant immigration enforcement action known as Operation Midway Blitz in 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 court. The 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 the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and ordered the parties to confer regarding potential violations of the Agreement identified by the plaintiffs and the relief sought by the plaintiffs in their cross-motion.
In a ruling on November 12, 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 its own ATD program (upon payment of a $1,500 bond) the foreign nationals in the group of 615 who were still in the U.S. and who were 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 or 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 requiring production of information on arrests. The court denied this motion on November 18, 2025.
The defendants appealed the district court’s orders to extend the consent decree and release individuals who were not deemed by ICE to be "high public safety risks" on November 20, 2025 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Both decisions were administratively stayed by the Seventh Circuit.
On December 11, 2025, the Seventh Circuit denied the defendants’ stay for the district court’s October 7 order extending the consent decree, finding no likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm to the government. However, the Seventh Circuit granted a partial stay for the district court’s November 13 order mandating the release of individuals arrested under field-issued warrants, holding that this likely violated statutory provisions against class-wide injunctive relief. 161 F.4th 1048.
On April 20, the district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the consent decree. The district court granted a similar motion on April 29.
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 order mandating release. 2026 WL 1223250. As to the October 7 order, the Seventh Circuit 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, the Seventh Circuit 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 to noncitizens living unlawfully inside the country. The court therefore affirmed the November 13 order to the extent it mandated 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 dissent suggesting 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."
On May 1, 2026, the plaintiffs filed another motion to enforce the Consent Decree in district court. On May 19, 2026, the district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce. That same day, the plaintiffs filed another motion to enforce the Consent Decree in district court.
On May 29, 2026, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the Consent Decree with respect to an individual’s release, finding that the individual did not pose an escape risk.
On June 10, 2026, the parties filed a joint status report in which they agreed to wind down and end the Consent Decree in the district court. The next day, the plaintiffs filed another motion to enforce the Consent Decree in the district court. On June 16, 2026, the district court granted the parties’ agreement and adopted the procedures outlined in the joint status report, modifying the previously ordered 30-day window for enforcement motions to a 60-day period—extendable to 90 days—following completion of record production. The order established a structured process for final record production, certification, and enforcement, including a ten-business-day window for plaintiffs to challenge defendants’ certifications of compliance.
On July 1, 2026, the district court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs’ motion to enforce the Consent Decree, finding that three of the individuals remained improperly detained or subject to bond conditions, while one individual’s detention was compliant. The district court ordered the defendants to release the three still-detained individuals.
On July 10, 2026, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration regarding the district court’s July 1 order on their motion to enforce.
On July 21, 2026, the plaintiffs filed another motion to enforce the Consent Decree. Eight days later, the plaintiffs filed an additional motion to enforce.
On August 12, 2026, the district court granted the motion for reconsideration with respect to one individual while denying it for others, and granted enforcement of the Consent Decree for four individuals while denying it for one individual.
On August 17, 2026, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ July 21 motion to enforce in part, ordering the release of five individuals on their own recognizance without bond or conditions, while continuing the matter as to others pending further proceedings.
This case is ongoing in the district court.
Summary Authors
Alexis Gil (8/17/2026)
People
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, Samuel B.
Attorney, William H.
Attorney, Benjamin Timothy
Attorney, Drew C.
Attorney, Amit Jain,
Garcia, Michelle Teresa (Illinois)
Georgevich, Mary Margaret (Illinois)
Glenberg, Rebecca Kim (Illinois)
Goettel, Katherine E. (Illinois)
Harper, Mary Sameera (Illinois)
Jordan, Elizabeth H. (Illinois)
Martin, Allena Rachel (Illinois)
O'meara, Patrick Robert (Illinois)
Poullaos, Ivan Michael (Illinois)
Bateman, William Carey (Illinois)
Byrd, Sarah Abigail (Illinois)
Cappelletti, Daniel (Illinois)
Jason, Wisecup Lloyd (Illinois)
Lindefjeld, Robert Olaf (Illinois)
Oswald, Craig Arthur (Illinois)
Press, Joshua Samuel (Illinois)
Pryby, Christopher Ian (Illinois)
Ross, Catherine Antonette (Illinois)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Resources
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6952165/castanon-nava-v-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated Sept. 3, 2026, 4:36 a.m.
Docket for: Castanon Nava v. Department of Homeland Security
Case Details
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):
Facility 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 Sought:
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 8/17/2026).