Filed Date: Sept. 4, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of arresting and re-detaining asylum seekers at the San Diego Immigration Court after they have been released on bond, parole, or recognizance.
On September 4, 2025, two asylum seekers—A.M. and C.L.V.—filed this class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Represented by Singleton Schreiber LLP, the plaintiffs brought this suit on behalf of all noncitizens released from ICE custody in San Diego who have been, or will be, re-arrested by ICE at immigration courthouses.
The plaintiffs alleged that ICE’s courthouse arrests and subsequent re-detentions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Specifically, they argued that the government’s policy and practice are “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law” under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)–(C) because they disregard ICE’s own release determinations and the INA’s procedural safeguards for detention. The complaint contends that ICE lacks statutory authority to re-arrest individuals previously released by defendants absent new findings of dangerousness or flight risk, and that these re-arrests occur without notice, a hearing, or changed circumstances, depriving individuals of their liberty in violation of due process.
The plaintiffs further alleged that the policy undermines the functioning of the immigration court system by chilling attendance at court hearings, interfering with access to counsel, and impeding the exercise of statutory and constitutional rights to seek relief from removal. They emphasized that the practice effectively punishes asylum seekers for complying with their legal obligations to appear in court.
The complaint asserted eight claims for relief: seven under the APA challenging the arrests as unlawful, ultra vires, and constitutionally infirm, and one direct Fifth Amendment substantive due process claim challenging the re-detentions as arbitrary deprivations of liberty. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit ICE from making courthouse arrests and to vacate all related agency directives and practices. They also asked the court to certify a class of all noncitizens in San Diego County who are or will be subject to ICE re-arrests at immigration court.
According to the complaint, DHS’s policy has caused irreparable harm by deterring asylum seekers from attending immigration court hearings, subjecting individuals with no criminal history to sudden and traumatic re-detention, and severely disrupting their asylum proceedings by forcing them to restart lengthy application processes, delaying work authorization, family reunification, and other protections to which they are entitled.
On the same day the complaint was filed, the plaintiffs submitted a Notice of Related Case identifying A.M. v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01412 (S.D. Cal.), as a related action. That earlier case, filed by A.M. individually on June 4, 2025, also challenges the legality of his civil immigration arrest at the San Diego Immigration Court. The notice explained that both actions raise the same central question—whether DHS and ICE may lawfully conduct civil immigration arrests of asylum seekers at the San Diego Immigration Court after their release on bond or parole—and involve overlapping defendants and factual circumstances. The plaintiffs argued that assigning the two cases to a single judge would promote judicial efficiency and consistent adjudication of the issues.
Originally the case was assigned to Judge Andrew G. Schopler, but later it was reassigned to Judge Jinsook Ohta on September 17.
The case remains ongoing.
Summary Authors
Claire Pollard (9/6/2025)
Jack Buckfire (10/23/2025)
A.M. v. Larose, Southern District of California (2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71273161/parties/am-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Bluth, Andrew Daniel (California)
Hutchison, Kimberly Sue (California)
CV, U S (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71273161/am-v-us-department-of-homeland-security/
Last updated Oct. 29, 2025, 1:14 a.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Sept. 4, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs consist of asylum seekers, A.M. and C.L.V., who filed this action on behalf of a proposed class of noncitizens in San Diego who have been, or will be, re-arrested by ICE at immigration courthouses after being released on bond, parole, or recognizance.
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Work authorization - procedures
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: