Filed Date: July 16, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges a coordinated set of federal immigration enforcement policies—referred to as a “campaign” of courthouse arrests—that authorize arrests in immigration courts, the abrupt dismissal of removal proceedings, and the placement of noncitizens into expedited removal. These policies are allegedly intended to deprive noncitizens of their rights by subjecting them to immediate arrest and removal while attending or appearing in court.
On July 16, 2025, Immigrant Advocates Response Collaborative (I-ARC), American Gateways, and several individual noncitizen plaintiffs filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ); the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), its Acting Director, and its Acting Regional Deputy Chief Immigration Judges; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and its Acting Director; and the U.S. Attorney General. Plaintiffs brought claims under the Administrative Procedure Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case was assigned to Judge Trevor N. McFadden.
The organizational plaintiffs alleged that the government’s policies disrupted their courthouse-based programs, which assist unrepresented individuals and provide legal representation in removal proceedings. The sudden implementation of courthouse arrests and case dismissals forced them to redirect resources toward emergency representation, administrative appeals, and credible fear interview preparation. These disruptions impaired their ability to serve clients, reduced the number they could assist, and weakened the effectiveness of their legal services. Plaintiffs argued that these harms resulted from unlawful government action violating the Administrative Procedure Act, as the policies were arbitrary, lacked reasoned explanation, and were implemented without required notice-and-comment procedures.
The individual plaintiffs alleged they were arrested in or near immigration court after DHS dismissed their pending removal proceedings without notice, despite having filed applications for asylum or other relief and appearing for hearings in good faith. After the dismissals, DHS arrested them and placed them in expedited removal proceedings while their original cases were still pending or on appeal. Plaintiffs were detained, sometimes far from family, subjected to an abbreviated credible fear process, and faced significant barriers to legal counsel. Some were deported without meaningful review of their asylum claims. They contended that the policies violated the Immigration and Nationality Act by bypassing safeguards in full removal proceedings and unlawfully expanding expedited removal beyond the two-year statutory limit. They also alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, arguing the policies denied fair notice, opportunity to be heard, and meaningful access to legal representation.
Represented by private counsel, plaintiffs sought class certification on behalf of similarly situated noncitizens who were placed in full removal proceedings, appeared for their hearings as required, and were then arrested and subjected to expedited removal under the challenged policies. Additionally, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief to halt implementation of the challenged policies, as well as declaratory relief, including an order requiring the government to reinstate prior guidance limiting courthouse arrests, ensure that DHS and EOIR follow proper procedures for dismissing removal proceedings, prohibit the initiation of expedited removal while full proceedings are pending, and prevent DHS from applying expedited removal to individuals who have been in the United States for more than two years.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Victoria Tan (7/25/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70813833/parties/immigrant-advocates-response-collaborative-v-us-department-of-justice/
Brewer, Simon Christopher (District of Columbia)
Caldarone, Richard P. (District of Columbia)
Cowgill, Colleen Mary (District of Columbia)
Feldman, Mark (District of Columbia)
Fleming, Mark (District of Columbia)
Brewer, Simon Christopher (District of Columbia)
Caldarone, Richard P. (District of Columbia)
Cowgill, Colleen Mary (District of Columbia)
Feldman, Mark (District of Columbia)
Fleming, Mark (District of Columbia)
Georgevich, Mary (District of Columbia)
Goldstein, Elena (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70813833/immigrant-advocates-response-collaborative-v-us-department-of-justice/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 12:11 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (Immigration Enforcement)
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 16, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Immigrant Advocates Response Collaborative (IARC) and American Gateways, both organirzations dedicated to providing legal services to immigrants, along with individual plaintiffs
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
National Immigrant Justice Center
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
U.S. Department of Justice (- United States (national) -), Federal
Executive Office for Immigration Review (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (- United States (national) -), Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: