ICE agents in Oregon may have to abide by the law in their arrests. U.S. immigration agents in Oregon must stop arresting people without warrants unless there’s a likelihood of escape, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
The decision stems from a class-action lawsuit challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of conducting warrantless immigration arrests during enforcement operations.
U.S. District Judge Mustafa Kasubhai issued a preliminary injunction in a proposed class-action lawsuit targeting the Department of Homeland Security’s practice of arresting immigrants they happen to come across while conducting ramped-up enforcement operations — which critics have described as “arrest first, justify later.”
The preliminary injunction will remain in effect while the lawsuit proceeds, and federal immigration agencies in Oregon are expected to adjust their practices accordingly. Legal observers note that this ruling could have broader implications if similar cases are brought in other states
Similar actions, including immigration agents entering private property without a warrant issued by a court, have drawn concern from civil rights groups across the country amid President Donald Trump’s mass deportation efforts.
READ: Reddit post sparks debate after Indian Green Card holder claims USCIS checked his LinkedIn (
In a federal court hearing in Oregon, Victor Cruz Gamez, a 56-year-old grandfather who has lived in the U.S. since 1999, testified about his arrest by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. Gamez stated that he was detained while driving home from work in October 2025, despite presenting a valid work permit and having a pending visa application. He was held in an immigration detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, for three weeks, during which he faced potential deportation until a lawyer intervened. Gamez described the emotional toll on his family, noting the fear and anxiety his detention caused his wife and grandchildren.
His testimony was part of the evidence in a class-action lawsuit challenging ICE’s warrantless arrest practices in Oregon.
The federal ruling in Oregon represents a significant moment for immigration enforcement in the United States, highlighting the limits of federal authority when it comes to individual rights and due process. By requiring ICE agents to obtain a warrant or demonstrate a likelihood of escape before making an arrest, the court has established a legal framework that prioritizes constitutional protections over blanket enforcement tactics.
READ: USCIS policy change alters green card path for children of H-1B visa holders (
Beyond Oregon, the decision may influence how ICE and other federal agencies approach enforcement nationwide. Agencies could be required to implement additional internal safeguards, documentation procedures, and training to ensure arrests comply with judicial oversight. Enforcement strategies that rely on surprise or warrantless detentions may face greater scrutiny, and other states could see similar legal challenges aimed at restricting unchecked federal authority.
The ruling also has broader implications for civil rights advocacy. It emphasizes that individuals and communities have avenues to challenge overreach and that courts are willing to intervene when enforcement practices potentially violate legal protections. In the long term, this case may encourage a more balanced approach to immigration enforcement—one that addresses legal responsibilities while minimizing harm to families and communities.
The Oregon injunction serves as a reminder that law enforcement actions, even at the federal level, are subject to judicial review, accountability, and the ongoing tension between security priorities and constitutional protections that may require adjustment in practice.