A federal judge in Colorado sharply limited the circumstances under which immigration officers can arrest people without a warrant, ruling Tuesday that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must show not only probable cause of unlawful presence but also evidence that a person is likely to flee before agents may detain them.
Senior U.S. District Judge R. Brooke Jackson issued the order in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Colorado and private attorneys on behalf of four Latino residents, including asylum-seekers, who were arrested this year without warrants during President Donald Trump’s expanded immigration enforcement.
The complaint alleges ICE agents conducted sweeping, indiscriminate arrests aimed at meeting enforcement targets rather than following statutory requirements.
Jackson said the plaintiffs — all with longstanding community ties — presented no facts that would justify a belief they posed a flight risk. “No reasonable officer could have concluded that these individuals were likely to flee,” he wrote, emphasizing that federal law requires both probable cause of unlawful presence and specific, articulable reasons why officers cannot wait for a warrant.
The ruling also mandates that immigration officers document the basis for any warrantless arrest.
The Department of Homeland Security criticized the decision. Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called it an “activist ruling” and rejected the allegation that federal officers engage in racial profiling. “These claims are disgusting, reckless and categorically false,” she said, adding that DHS believes recent Supreme Court actions will support an appeal.
The Colorado order mirrors a similar decision earlier this year in California, where a federal judge restricted Border Patrol’s warrantless arrests.
The government is appealing that case after the Supreme Court lifted a separate restraining order in Los Angeles that barred agents from stopping people solely based on race, language, job or location.
McLaughlin signaled the Colorado ruling will likely face the same trajectory. “The Supreme Court recently vindicated us on this question elsewhere,” she said. “We look forward to further vindication in this case as well.”
The decision marks one of the clearest judicial rebukes to date of the administration’s accelerated enforcement strategy and raises questions about how ICE will conduct operations in states where community ties are strong and warrants are required absent a documented risk of flight.
