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 contended that ICE lacked statutory authority to re-arrest individuals previously released by defendants absent new findings of danger or flight risk, and that these re-arrests involved stark due process violations. The plaintiffs further alleged that the policy undermined 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.
The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prohibit ICE from making courthouse arrests and to vacate all related agency directives and practices in light the irreparable harm caused by sudden and traumatic re-detention and/or and severe disruption to asylum proceedings. 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.
The case was initially assigned to Judge Andrew G. Schopler.
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. 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.
The case was reassigned to Judge Jinsook Ohta on September 17. It remains ongoing as of December 22, 2025.
Summary Authors
Claire Pollard (9/6/2025)
Jack Buckfire (12/1/2025)
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 Jan. 17, 2026, 1:04 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
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):
Other Dockets:
Southern District of California 3:25-cv-02308
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border:
Work authorization - procedures
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions: