Federal Court Considers Lawsuit Against Warrantless Immigration Arrests in Ohio
COLUMBUS — A three-day hearing is set to commence on Wednesday in federal court in Columbus, where judges will evaluate a lawsuit alleging that immigration officials conducted illegal warrantless arrests throughout Ohio.
Chief U.S. District Judge Sarah Morrison has scheduled an evidentiary hearing to examine a civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of immigrants who assert they were detained without appropriate legal grounds. The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to prohibit federal agents from executing mass street sweeps absent of warrants.
This lawsuit was initiated in March by four immigrants residing in Ohio against the Department of Homeland Security and several immigration enforcement agencies. The plaintiffs are requesting class action status, aiming to represent all individuals arrested for immigration violations in Ohio without a warrant since April 2025.
Federal law permits immigration officials to make warrantless arrests under specific conditions. These include having probable cause to believe that an individual is in the country illegally and may flee before a warrant can be issued.
The filed complaint claims that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents frequently disregard the required conditions for making arrests. Undercover agents in unmarked vehicles reportedly stopped individuals outside their homes, workplaces, and stores. The plaintiffs allege that officers often handcuff individuals prior to verifying their identities, conducting background checks, or determining their likelihood of fleeing.
Immigration attorneys contend that the federal government is employing aggressive tactics to meet nationwide arrest quotas, which leads to detaining local residents with stable employment, strong family connections, and no prior criminal records. The complaint highlights instances where individuals targeted during operations possessed valid work permits or had pending applications to legalize their status. In one reported case, federal agents detained two Puerto Rican-born Americans for four days before their eventual release.
In May, the Justice Department sought to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction over the matter. Government lawyers contended that immigration arrests are integral to a broader deportation process governed by federal immigration courts, rather than district judges.
The government has also denied allegations of federal immigration officials circumventing legal standards. According to court documents submitted by the defense, immigration officers undergo regular training on arrest protocols and conduct individual assessments during field encounters.
Federal officials referenced a January directive from immigration officials detailing the procedures for assessing flight risk. This order instructs officers to consider various situational factors, such as whether an individual is in a moving vehicle, attempting to evade capture, or presenting false identification. Government lawyers have argued that fears of illegal re-arrests for the plaintiffs are speculative, as all of them were released on bail.
Judge Morrison will weigh evidence from both parties during the hearing, which is scheduled to extend through Friday. The court will ultimately decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction that would halt warrantless arrests not involving an immediate evaluation of flight risk as the broader litigation unfolds.
