Attorney general leads support for farm worker lawsuit against Noem

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is leading a coalition of states in support of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)  and United Farm Workers against Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and other officials following a multi-day immigration enforcement operation last year.

“Operation Return to Sender” took place in Kern County in early January, resulting in the arrest of 78 people. The ACLU soon after filed a lawsuit on behalf of UFW and five individuals affected by the raids, asking a judge to stop Border Patrol from continuing to conduct patrols of predominantly Latino neighborhoods in Kern County. Bonta led an 18-state coalition last month in formally supporting the lawsuit.

“These unlawful stops and warrantless arrests have, unfortunately, become a familiar story for communities in California this past year,” said Bonta in a statement. “The unscrupulous tactics used by Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino and his team of agents during raids in Kern County, Los Angeles and across the nation threaten the basic civil liberties afforded to all who call this country home. I urge the court to block these lawless practices and help protect California communities.”

States show support for ACLU lawsuit

While a judge temporarily blocked DHS from conducting warrantless stops like the ones seen in Kern County, the case is still open in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which led the coalition spearheaded by Bonta to file an amicus brief on Dec. 31, 2025 urging a judge to keep the injunction in place.

The coalition stated the Kern County raid had a severe negative impact on communities, leading to decreased school attendance, a drop in people going to work and causing local businesses to lose revenue. 

They also refer to the operation as a blueprint for the rest of DHS’s large-scale raids throughout the country in 2025, including in Los Angeles, New Orleans and Chicago. Border Patrol Greg Bovino is quoted in the brief as saying the Kern County raid was a “‘very successful’ test of the agency’s capabilities.”

The coalition argues that lifting the injunction has the potential for public consequences, including economic and employment-based harms and public safety harms.

The coalition also states that the operation, and others like it, have eroded trust in local law enforcement and even make law enforcement’s job harder.

The brief points to reports from the Pasadena Police Department that it has had to investigate reports of kidnappings and hit-and-run incidents, only to determine the incidents were carried out by federal agents.

“In sum, (DHS) unlawful practices have not only created a culture of fear that has disrupted community life,” reads the brief, “but have also impeded the operations of local law enforcement. It is therefore in the public interest that the preliminary injunction remain in place.”

Kern County was “the blueprint”

On Feb. 26, the ACLU filed its lawsuit against DHS, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Border Patrol, claiming the agencies had violated individuals' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, Fifth Amendment right to due process, among breaking other federal laws. Border Patrol agents also traveled nearly 300 miles away from the U.S.- Mexico border to conduct their operations in Bakersfield.

At the time, Border Patrol said in a statement they were only targeting immigrants with criminal backgrounds. However, none of the individuals who were detained and named in the lawsuit had criminal backgrounds.

The lawsuit, as well as witnesses to the raids, claim federal agents stopped and detained people of color who were assumed to be Latino, or looked to be day laborers or farm workers. Agents conducted roving patrols of predominantly Latino neighborhoods and visited common day laborer stops like Home Depot and gas stations.

If an individual was stopped on the street and exercised their right to remain silent, “Border Patrol agents escalated the interaction to a detentive stop or arrest, conducted warrantless searches without consent and did so without any basis to believe the person was violating an immigration law,” reads the lawsuit.

The ACLU also states that agents tailed cars that seemed to be occupied by individuals who appeared like day laborers or farm workers, pulling them over and demanding to see documentation. 

“[W]hen a person in a vehicle declined to answer Border Patrol agents’ questions or consent to the encounter, the agents similarly escalated the encounter by blocking the car in, smashing the car’s windows, slashing the car’s tires, and/or ordering or physically pulling people out of vehicles and handcuffing them.”

The filing refers to the operation as a “fishing expedition," claiming the goal was to round up as many individuals as possible, regardless of whether they had proper documentation, and transport them to the El Centro Border Patrol Station to coerce them into “voluntary departure.” If the detained individuals complied, they would be deported and barred from reentry to the U.S. for up to 10 years.

At least 40 people, “the majority of whom had lived in the United States for years, were expelled to Mexico after being coerced to accept voluntary departure, leaving behind families, communities, home and livelihoods,” reads the lawsuit.

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction in April blocking Border Patrol from conducting warrantless immigration stops. The court also required agents to document their stops and arrests. The federal government soon appealed the decision.

“You just can’t walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,’” said U.S. District Court Judge Jennifer L. Thurston during a court hearing in Fresno.