Jared
LightNews LightNews
banner
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Jared
@jaredmcclain.bsky.social
1.8K followers 1K following 770 posts
Civil Rights Lawyer

“Crusading against government officials and the immunity doctrines that protect them." -St. Tammany Parrish Sheriff's Office

Contractually obligated to say that my opinions are my own
Posts Replies Media Videos
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
"I find it breathtaking that I have been compelled on the evidence to find the conduct of such high-level officers of our government - cabinet secretaries — conspired to infringe the First Amendment rights of people with such rights here in the United States," Young said. "These cabinet secretaries have failed in their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution."
January 16, 2026 at 3:53 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
If you don't think armed government agents should act with impunity, now's as good a time as any to support @ij.org's Project on Immunity & Accountability.

The project exists solely to make sure there's a remedy when the government violates your rights.

ij.org/issues/proje...
January 14, 2026 at 4:18 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
DOJ say fences and No Trespassing signs aren't enough to make construction sites private.

Here's an HSI agent running right past a No Trespassing sign after he hopped a fence to go tackle an American citizen while he poured concrete for a new house.
HSI agent in a brown tactical vest, white T-shirt, and Vans running onto a construction site past a Job Box posted with a No Trespassing sign Job Box posted with No Trespassing sign that reads, "WARNING: DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE. TRESPASSERS WILL BE PROSECUTED TO THE FULL EXTENT OF THE LAW."
December 19, 2025 at 4:53 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
ICE is arguing that construction sites are like “open fields” that don’t require search warrants because they’re freely “accessible to the public and the police.”

Here are two sites that they went into without a warrant.

Do these homes look like open fields?
Nearly finished house in Fair Hope, Alabama, that officers entered without a warrant on June 12 to arrest Leonardo Garcia Venegas Home in Chicago getting some renovations done that ICE entered without a warrant
December 19, 2025 at 3:00 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
We filed our reply and cited this paragraph from their dec at least a half dozen times.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
In response to this motion, Defendants argue that they don’t need warrants for construction sites because they’re “open fields.” They also admit that officers went to Leo’s site with no idea who they’d find, let alone particularized suspicion. And they admit that they kept Leo in handcuffs after seeing his REAL ID because, they say, states can issue REAL IDs to illegal aliens. But that’s simply false. And the Secretary of Homeland Security, a Defendant here, should know better since her agency administers the REAL ID program. Unable to refute the policies’ existence, Defendants feebly question Leo’s standing and warn that an injunction would imperil immigration enforcement. They suggest that requiring immigration officers to get warrants to search private worksites and to detain only those people for whom they have particularized suspicion—two basic tenets of the Fourth Amendment—would “curtail[] every on-the-ground immigration search and detention” and “chill routine field operations.” Defs.’ Br. Opp. PI (ECF No. 46) 2–3, 28 (“PIOpp.”). But Leo does not question the federal government’s broad authority over immigration, just three lawless policies. That those policies have become so “routine” is exactly why an injunction is necessary. American citizens like Leo must be free to work without living in constant fear that they’ll be wrongfully detained based on how they look. week, after Escobar Molina enjoined DHS from reducing the evidentiary threshold for immigration arrests, DHS reiterated, in a comment about Leo’s lawsuit, that arrests require mere reasonable suspicion. Ex. A (McClain Decl.) ¶ 4. Add that to the fact that the Chief Border Patrol Agent has emphasized that they consider how people “look” to be reasonable suspicion, Windham Decl. ¶ 18, and there’s ample reason to doubt that HSI follows the law by developing particularized suspicion. The top officials in these different subagencies are taking their orders directly from Secretary Noem, McClain Decl. ¶ 3, and the Administration’s policy statements to the press and on social media are disseminated to “a broad audience, which includes law enforcement officers under DHS’s command.” Escobar Molina, 2025 WL 3465518, at *24. And besides, the little that ASAC Lavoie does tell us about HSI’s January training runs counter to federal law and DHS’s own regulations. He says REAL IDs are unreliable evidence of lawful status because some states issue them to illegal aliens. Lavoie Decl. ¶ 16. But a quick skim of the REAL ID Act and its implementing regulations would have alerted ASAC Lavoie that his agency has the law wrong. Infra III.C. Nevertheless, Defendants ask this Court to ignore almost all evidence besides ASAC Lavoie’s unreliable claim about HSI’s training. They ask the Court to disregard all media reports. PI Opp. 15–16 n.5. And they call the experiences of non-citizens irrelevant. See id. at 16. Same for people who live outside the District, id., as if Defendants—who direct raids across the Southeast and take orders from D.C.—created special rules for Southern Alabama. Contra McClain Decl. ¶ 10 (Defendant Schrank discussing raids in Northern Alabama). And it’s no wonder. Only by ignoring Leo’s corroborating evidence can
December 18, 2025 at 11:00 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
I would simply die.

www.centralmaine.com/2025/12/15/m...
The lawyers who called Scott Greaney this fall seemed to him to make a good point. The women, the 61-year-old turkey farmer from Mercer said, told him that two seats on a state committee overseeing funds meant to support Maine farmers, loggers and others were reserved by statute for people representing “historically underserved racial populations.” “At face value,” Greaney said in an interview via telephone Monday, “the whole thing about reserving two seats for specific types of people — that ain’t right.” So he agreed to help the lawyers, who wanted to challenge whether that was constitutional. But what Greaney did not realize was that he was signing on to be the sole plaintiff in a federal lawsuit filed Friday against two state officials — and that the national, libertarian-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation would issue a Friday evening press release that Greaney says was misleading. “I have no use for liars and no use for thieves,” Greaney said. “I don’t know what this is all about. I was planning on calling (the lawyers) today and saying, ‘What the hell is this?’ I’m trying to run a business in the state of Maine, and it has me looking like a punk.”
December 18, 2025 at 10:35 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
They said our client stepping to his right to keep filming his brother’s suspicionless arrest from 25 feet away created reasonable suspicion he “was attempting to interfere with an arrest, threatening Officer Safety, and that he may be an alien.”

But the explanation & cite for his 2nd arrest is 🤌🏼
Similarly, while ICE has no record of the June 12 encounter, if this brief—no longer than thirty-minute police-citizen [Doc. 1, PageID.26, ¶152] encounter—occurred, then the Federal Defendants had a reasonable suspicion to detain him. [Doc. 44-1, PageID.469, ¶15]. This authority is rooted in the HSI Special Agents’ training and experience and immigration authority. Kavanaugh, J., concurring in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, No. 25A169, 2025 WL 2585637, at *3 (U.S. Sept. 8, 2025) (granting stay) (“Importantly, reasonable suspicion means only that immigration officers may briefly stop the individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person is a U. S. citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, that individual will be free to go after the brief encounter. Only if the person is illegally in the United States may the stop lead to further immigration proceedings”). Thus, Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on the merits and this Court should deny his request for a Preliminary Injunction. The Federal Defendants conducted a lawful general immigration enforcement and lawful detention(s).
December 15, 2025 at 2:15 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
The point he’s trying to make about unreliability is that some states give licenses to people without status. But the REAL ID Act requires those licenses to say in a prominent place that they’re not REAL IDs.
235. A REAL. ID is presumptive proof of citizenship. 236. Evidence of lawful status like a REAL ID negates even reasonable suspicion-and especially negates whatever suspicion could be created through DHS's generalized profile of undocumented construction workers. 237. When an officer seizes someone based only (or even mostly) on their demographic profile, it should not take much counter-evidence to dispel the suspicion. A REAL. ID is more than enough. 238. DHS certifies that REAL IDs comply with the REAL ID Act, which provides that the federal government will accept licenses as REAL. IDs only if a state verifies an applicant's citizenship or immigration status before issuing the license. 239. Duly promulgated federal regulations also establish that a state-issued REAL. ID has been certified as complying with the REAL ID Act, 6 C.F.R. § 37.3, which includes security features for IDs to prevent forgery, id. $5 37.15, 37.17, and a requirement that IDs be issued only to applicants who provide evidence of lawful status, id. § 37.11, after the state verifies their documents, id. $ 37.13. 240. REAL. IDs must also include barcodes to make them machine-readable. 6C.E.R. $ 37.19. 241. DHS certifies which licenses are REAL-ID-compliant and requires that any non-compliant IDs must have a unique design or color to distinguish them from REAL IDs and must clearly state that the card is not acceptable for official purposes. 6 C.FR. § 37.71. 242. Despite these regulations certifying the authenticity of REAL. IDs, requiring that they are issued only to people with legal status, and making it easy for officers to tell if a license is not REAL-ID compliant, DHS's continued detention policy does not recognize REAL. IDs as strong evidence of legal status. 243. The policy authorizes immigration officers to ignore the verification process that DHS has already completed in order to continue detaining workers with a REAL ID or other evidence that they are authorized to work.
December 13, 2025 at 5:42 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
It’s true that non-citizens can get one, but people here without legal status cannot. And if the point of the stop is about confirming legal status, the REAL ID does that. Here’s Sam Alito agreeing.
The Continued Detention Policy authorizes the very type of seizures that Alcocer forbids-but at scale. Many of these seizures turn into arrests that exceed the officers' power under 8 C.FR. § 287.8(c)(2) (i)-(ii). Under the policy, immigration officers can detain workers-initially seized on the premise that they are undocumented-even after workers show proof of citizenship or lawful presence. Supra pp 11-12. It happened to Leo twice. Both times, officers had his driver's license in hand within minutes. Supra pp. 5-6. Alabama issues licenses only to citizens or those who are lawfully present, Ala. Code § 31-13-29(c) (1), (g), specifically "to discourage illegal immigration within the state and maximize enforcement of federal immigration laws through cooperation with federal authorities." United States v. Alabama, 691 F3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, Leo was "entitled to the presumption that he... [was] lawfully present." Ala. Code § 31-13- 3(11). Leo's license also has a star in the corner, which he could obtain only with the documents DHS certifies are compliant with the federal REAL ID Act. 6 C.ER. § 37.71.5 Under that Act, a REAL ID "suffice[s] to establish lawful presence." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 449 n.1 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring in part).
December 13, 2025 at 5:41 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Even a young(er) Sam Alito agreed having a REAL ID would establish legal status.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
The Continued Detention Policy authorizes the very type of seizures that Alcocer forbids-but at scale. Many of these seizures turn into arrests that exceed the officers' power under 8 C.FR. § 287.8(c)(2) (i)-(ii). Under the policy, immigration officers can detain workers-initially seized on the premise that they are undocumented-even after workers show proof of citizenship or lawful presence. Supra pp 11-12. It happened to Leo twice. Both times, officers had his driver's license in hand within minutes. Supra pp. 5-6. Alabama issues licenses only to citizens or those who are lawfully present, Ala. Code § 31-13-29(c) (1), (g), specifically "to discourage illegal immigration within the state and maximize enforcement of federal immigration laws through cooperation with federal authorities." United States v. Alabama, 691 F3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, Leo was "entitled to the presumption that he... [was] lawfully present." Ala. Code § 31-13- 3(11). Leo's license also has a star in the corner, which he could obtain only with the documents DHS certifies are compliant with the federal REAL ID Act. 6 C.ER. § 37.71.5 Under that Act, a REAL ID "suffice[s] to establish lawful presence." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 449 n.1 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring in part).
December 13, 2025 at 4:28 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
DHS is also the agency responsible for certifying that state IDs comply with the REAL ID Act.

storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
235. A REAL. ID is presumptive proof of citizenship. 236. Evidence of lawful status like a REAL ID negates even reasonable suspicion-and especially negates whatever suspicion could be created through DHS's generalized profile of undocumented construction workers. 237. When an officer seizes someone based only (or even mostly) on their demographic profile, it should not take much counter-evidence to dispel the suspicion. A REAL. ID is more than enough. 238. DHS certifies that REAL IDs comply with the REAL ID Act, which provides that the federal government will accept licenses as REAL. IDs only if a state verifies an applicant's citizenship or immigration status before issuing the license. 239. Duly promulgated federal regulations also establish that a state-issued REAL. ID has been certified as complying with the REAL ID Act, 6 C.F.R. § 37.3, which includes security features for IDs to prevent forgery, id. $5 37.15, 37.17, and a requirement that IDs be issued only to applicants who provide evidence of lawful status, id. § 37.11, after the state verifies their documents, id. $ 37.13. 240. REAL. IDs must also include barcodes to make them machine-readable. 6C.E.R. $ 37.19. 241. DHS certifies which licenses are REAL-ID-compliant and requires that any non-compliant IDs must have a unique design or color to distinguish them from REAL IDs and must clearly state that the card is not acceptable for official purposes. 6 C.FR. § 37.71. 242. Despite these regulations certifying the authenticity of REAL. IDs, requiring that they are issued only to people with legal status, and making it easy for officers to tell if a license is not REAL-ID compliant, DHS's continued detention policy does not recognize REAL. IDs as strong evidence of legal status. 243. The policy authorizes immigration officers to ignore the verification process that DHS has already completed in order to continue detaining workers with a REAL ID or other evidence that they are authorized to work.
December 13, 2025 at 4:21 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
The government has decided, with no basis other than feeding its new tech, that our biometrics are only IDs that count.
16. Only after being cuffed, Plaintiff stated that he had identification in his pocket. He was then brought to stand by the government vehicles. A subsequent search of his pocket by the HSI Special Agent located Plaintiff's wallet, containing Plaintiff's REAL ID-compliant Alabama driver's license, as well as a second driver's license. The HSI Special Agent needed to further verify his U.S. citizenship because each state has its own REAL ID compliance laws, which may provide for the issuance of a REAL ID to an alien and therefore based on HSI Special Agent training and experience, REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship. From page 4 Case 1:25-cV-00397-JB-N Doc# 44-1 Filed 12/11/25 Page 6 of 10 PagelD# 470
December 13, 2025 at 1:50 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Add to this that HSI just filed a declaration in our case challenging these policies saying they can’t trust REAL IDs as proof of status.

So showing your papers isn’t even enough to end the stop.
16. Only after being cuffed, Plaintiff stated that he had identification in his pocket. He was then brought to stand by the government vehicles. A subsequent search of his pocket by the HSI Special Agent located Plaintiff's wallet, containing Plaintiff's REAL ID-compliant Alabama driver's license, as well as a second driver's license. The HSI Special Agent needed to further verify his U.S. citizenship because each state has its own REAL ID compliance laws, which may provide for the issuance of a REAL ID to an alien and therefore based on HSI Special Agent training and experience, REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship.
December 12, 2025 at 6:54 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Last week (left), a federal judge found that DHS had an unlawful policy of arresting Latinos without probable cause based on Tricia McLaughlin's statements saying they only need reasonable suspicion.

This week (right), Tricia repeats the company line to WIRED.

Their lack of shame helps in court.
Heeding these orders, DHS’s leadership has, according to plaintiffs, implemented a policy and practice of arresting people who live or work in the District and whom they perceive to be Latino, without the required probable cause findings that those individuals are in the United States unlawfully and are likely to escape before an administrative warrant can be obtained. See Pls.’ Prelim. Inj. Mot. at 6. Finding that defendants have implemented such a policy and practice does not require a far leap of logic: defendants themselves have repeatedly emphasized an abandonment of the probable cause standard. For example, Tricia McLaughlin, DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs and “the principal advisor to Secretary Noem on all external and internal communications,” has made multiple public statements confirming this point.32 On September 25, 2025, in response to this lawsuit, McLaughlin, as DHS spokesperson, is quoted as making the following public statement: “Allegations that DHS law enforcement officers engage in “racial profiling” are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE. What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity. Under the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, DHS law enforcement uses “reasonable suspicion” to make arrests. There are no “indiscriminate stops” being made. The Supreme Court recently vindicated us on this question. DHS enforces federal immigration law without fear, favor, or prejudice,” assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS Tricia McLaughlin tells WIRED.
December 10, 2025 at 7:46 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Great piece connecting some of the dots on how the administration is using (and misusing) a massive network of data to increase immigration enforcement.

The constant expansion of the surveillance state puts all of our privacy and safety is at risk.
Screenshot from the piece: “I think that if you fit the demographic profile that they're targeting and you are a citizen, [authorities] view the 30 minutes or three hours or three days that you spend in custody as just a necessary cost of the current enforcement system and the quotas and the bonuses and everything that goes along with that,” says Jared McClain, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which is representing Garcia Venegas.
December 10, 2025 at 7:35 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
From SCOTUS. That part just wasn’t captured in the screenshots.
violations or hazardous conditions cannot be seen from the outside of a residence." Id. at 38. In response, Tenants assert the overriding policy consideration in this matter should be the preservation of privacy within one's home. In evaluating cach of the four Edmunds factors, we conclude that article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protections in the area of probable cause to obtain a search warrant for a rental inspection than the Fourth Amendment. Pennsylvania courts have consistently highlighted the importance of its citizens rights to personal privacy within their homes and have frequently departed from Fourth Amendment jurisprudence when its citizens' rights to personal privacy are implicated. Pennsylvania prohibited searches unsupported by probable cause before the United States Constitution was enacted to prohibit, in part, the government from conducting "sweeping searches of residences and businesses, based upon generalized suspicions." See Edmunds, 586 A.2d at 897. As a result, article I, section 8 was specifically designed to prevent the issuance of a warrant on anything less than individualized probable cause. Contrary to the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourth Amendment in Camara, and contrary to many other states that have considered the issue, Pennsylvania's Constitutional drafters designed the probable cause standard for obtaining a search warrant to be established only by a showing that "there is a fair probability that relevant evidence will be found in a particular place." Jacoby, 170 A.3d at 1082. As this Court recognized in Tobin, Camara's probable cause test reduces the rental inspection warrant procedure to a rubber stamp. See Tobin, 828 A.2d at 423 ("obtaining an administrative warrant [under Camara's test] should be a matter of routine"). This does not comport with the history of article I, section 8 or Pennsylvania's protection of the right to privacy in one's home. 23
December 10, 2025 at 4:08 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Big win in PA: Yesterday, the Commonwealth Court broke from the SCOTUS and ruled that the government doesn’t get to search your home without a warrant just because you rent rather than own.

ij.org/wp-content/u...
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Dorothy Rivera, Eddy Omar Rivera, Kathleen O'Connor, Rosemarie O'Connor, Estate of Thomas O'Connor, and Steven Camburn : CASES CONSOLIDATED Borough of Pottstown and Keith A. Place, Appellants : No. 190 C.D. 2024 Dorothy Rivera, Eddy Omar Rivera, Kathleen O'Connor, Rosemarie O'Connor, Estate of Thomas O'Connor, and Steven Cambum, Appellants Borough of Pottstown and Keith A. Place : No. 224 C.D. 2024 : Argued: March 5, 2025 BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJIK, Judge HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE STACY WALLACE, Judge HONORABLE MATTHEW S. WOLF, Judge OPINION BY JUDGE WALLACE FILED: December 9, 2025 The Borough of Pottstown and Keith A. Place, the Borough's Director of Licensing and Inspections (collectively, the Borough), appeal from the January 24, 2024 order of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County (trial court) to the extent the trial court denied the Borough's motion for summary judgment and granted the request of Dorothy Rivera, Eddy Omar Rivera, Kathleen O'Connor, Rosemarie O'Connor, the Estate of Thomas O'Connor, and Steven Camburn (collectively, Tenants),' to enjoin the Borough from conducting The Borough urges us to apply the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's analysis of dragnet-style searches in Interest of Y.W.-B., but we are not persuaded to do so. Even though the Code's provisions authorizing administrative warrants for biennial rental inspections apply to all rental properties within the Borough and are designed to ensure uniformity and compliance with the Code's health and safety provisions, when the Borough obtains a warrant to conduct a biennial rental inspection, it is not engaging in a dragnet-style search. See Interest of Y.W.-B., 265 A.3d at 622 ("Dragnet searches are not predicated on individualized showings of probable cause, nor indeed on any kind of individualized suspicion."). Instead, the Borough is expressly engaging in a search which must be supported by probable cause. PA. CoNST. art. I, § 8 ("no warrant to search any place... shall issue... without probable cause"). Here, the Borough's biennial rental inspection warrants are, at best, based on generalized suspicions. Therefore, we conclude the Borough's Code provisions authorizing administrative warrants for biennial'° rental inspections on less than individualized probable cause are facially unconstitutional under article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution." IV. Conclusion Having so concluded, we affirm the trial court's order to the extent it denied the Borough's motions for summary judgment, reverse the trial court's order to the extent it denied Tenant's motion for summary judgment regarding facial unconstitutionality, and reverse the trial court's order to the extent it granted
December 10, 2025 at 2:57 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
And the team at Covington I should have mentioned too.

Here’s a nice clip of Howell holding the government responsible for its public commentary.

DHS made the same sorts of comments in response to our suit.
These statements are just some examples, of many, illustrating the finality of defendants' recent policy of making warrantless arrests under a standard lower than probable cause. See also, e.g., Widas Decl., Ex. 22 (White House official, Stephen Miller, quoted as instructing ICE to stop developing target lists of immigrants and to instead "just go out there" and arrest people right away at Home Depots or 7-Elevens)*; id., Ex. 23 (quoting statement from Acting Executive Associate Director of ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations telling his agents to "turn up the creative knob up to 11 and push the envelope," and another statement from a senior ICE official telling agents, "If it involves handcuffs on wrists, it's probably worth pursuing").38 In fact, when a former-acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of California told Bovino that he could not make civil immigration arrests without probable cause, she reportedly was fired. Id., Ex. 16.39 Tellingly, neither defendants' briefs nor their declarations disavowed these public statements. When questioned at the hearing, government counsel's principal defense was that "these statements [were made] by non-attorneys" who "don't necessarily understand" "legal terms of art like "reasonable suspicion, [and] probable cause." Hr'g Tr. at 63:15-19. This is a remarkable assertion. On its face, the government's defense appears to be that the individuals behind these statements are ignorant or incompetent, or both. These statements, however, were made by high-ranking officials including Secretary Noem's principal communications advisor and a Chief Border Patrol Agent-in their official capacity to the press, on DHS's official website, and on DHS's official social media account. The Chief Border Patrol Agent, in fact, made clear
December 3, 2025 at 3:17 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Judge Howell just enjoined warrantless immigration arrests in DC without probable cause to believe the person is a flight risk.

Great work by ACLU and Amica

www.courtlistener.com/docket/71452...
Case 1:25-cv-03417-BAH Document 68 Filed 12/02/25 Page 4 of 88 For the reasons discussed below, plaintiffs' motion to enjoin preliminarily defendants from continuing any policy or practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District without making individualized probable cause determinations as to each arrestee's risk of escape, as required by 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), is granted, and a final decision on the requested certification of a class and both subclasses will be reserved for a later time. Defendants are preliminarily enjoined from enforcing their policy of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests without probable cause to believe that the arrestee is likely to escape before an administrative warrant can be obtained; and only plaintiffs' proposed Unassessed Escape Risk Class is provisionally certified.
December 3, 2025 at 2:31 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Come work with me and learn how to sue over the stories that make you mad online.

ij.org/careers/
Applications now open: Dave Kennedy Fellowships for Summer 2026
November 26, 2025 at 6:12 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
We've been going after mass surveillance (like ALPRs) and pretextual traffic stops for years.

This article highlights @ij.org client Alek Schott's case to show how the two issues have converged.

It's time to take away the government's toys.
Federal agents observed that Schott had made an overnight trip from Houston to Carrizo Springs, Texas, and back, court records show. They knew he stayed overnight in a hotel about 80 miles (129 kilometers) from the U.S.-Mexico border. They knew that in the morning Schott met a female colleague there before they drove together to a business meeting. At Border Patrol’s request, Schott was pulled over by Bexar County sheriff’s deputies. The deputies held Schott by the side of the road for more than an hour, searched his car and found nothing. “The beautiful thing about the Texas Traffic Code is there’s thousands of things you can stop a vehicle for,” said Joel Babb, the sheriff’s deputy who stopped Schott’s car, in a deposition in a lawsuit Schott filed alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
November 20, 2025 at 7:07 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
I'm in WaPo today explaining why the administration's profiling of people for immigration stops based on their ethnicity and occupation is unconstitutional:

wapo.st/43W3haf
Title shot of WaPo op-ed, entitled, "He's a citizen with a Real ID. ICE detained him anyway. Twice." with a picture of Leonardo Garcia Venegas standing by his work truck in Baldwin County, Alabama. This constitutional requirement prevents stops based on general suspicion about people who look a certain way, live in a certain area or work for a certain company. For instance, the Supreme Court has said that someone’s presence in a high-crime area is not sufficient to justify even a brief investigatory stop. Even hanging out in a bar that’s being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant is not enough. Officers must have evidence that a specific individual broke the law. When officers detain groups of people based on their occupation, their location, or “how they look,” as U.S. Customs and Border Protection official Gregory Bovino described the administration’s strategy in Chicago, the stop will rarely — if ever — be justified. That’s especially true when people are working at private businesses subject to federal employee-verification requirements.
November 10, 2025 at 2:16 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
From a different witness's statement in our case:
Paragraph # 31 of witness statement: An agent wearing an FBI-marked vest told my wife that the agents receive a monetary bonus for each undocumented worker they catch, and that if she pointed out which of the handcuffed workers were undocumented, she would get a $200 cut of that bonus per person.
October 29, 2025 at 6:59 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
A witness in our case had ICE reject all her documents after using facial rec on her.

For her, tho, it seemed like nothing could make them accept that she has a right to be here.

Either way, a gov policy of not trusting gov-issued docs is going to violate lots of people's rights.
I told the officers nearest to me that I had all my paperwork, including my U.S. Employment Authorization Card, my Social Security Card, my Florida-issued REAL ID, and my Mexican Passport. 14. The officers walked me to my car and retrieved my paperwork. 15. The officers reviewed my paperwork and used what I believe was facial recognition to confirm my identity. 16. At first, they seemed satisfied, but another officer (who appeared to be a supervisor) said that they could not trust my paperwork because “the Biden Administration made a lot of mistakes.” After about 20 minutes in zip-ties, the officers decided that they would not let me go, and they replaced my zip-ties with handcuffs and shackles around my legs. 18. I was in shackles for several hours before the officers finally told me that they were “giving me a second chance” and let me go. Case 1:25-cv-00397-JB-C Doc# 30-5 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 10 PageID# 361 25-00397-C 30-5 25 Page4of10 PagelD# 17.
October 29, 2025 at 5:18 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Even a younger Sam Alito thought REAL IDs should be presumptive proof of lawful status.
arrested has committed an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c) (2) (i) -(ii).4 The Continued Detention Policy authorizes the very type of seizures that Alcocer forbids—but at scale. Many of these seizures turn into arrests that exceed the officers' power under 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(i)-(ii). Under the policy, immigration officers can detain workers—initially seized on the premise that they are undocumented-even after workers show proof of citizenship or lawful presence. Supra pp 11-12. It happened to Leo twice. Both times, officers had his driver's license in hand within minutes. Supra pp. 5-6. Alabama issues licenses only to citizens or those who are lawfully present, Ala. Code § 31- 13-29(c) (1), (g), specifically "to discourage illegal immigration within the state and maximize enforcement of federal immigration laws through cooperation with federal authorities." United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, Leo was "entitled to the presumption that he ….. [was] lawfully present." Ala. Code § 31-13- 3(11). Leo's license also has a star in the corner, which he could obtain only with the documents DHS certifies are compliant with the federal REAL ID Act. 6 C.F.R. § 37.71.5 Under that Act, a REAL ID "suffice[s] to establish lawful presence." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 449 n.1 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring in part).
October 28, 2025 at 6:46 PM