Peralta v. DHS

Since the beginning of the second Trump administration, Defendants Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement have had a policy and practice of arresting Ohioans wantonly and recklessly without a warrant or probable cause. Plaintiffs are all immigrants who were arrested abruptly, aggressively, without an existing warrant, and without an assessment of their likelihood of escape, as required by the INA.

With a notable spike during Operation Buckeye in December 2025, warrantless immigration enforcement arrests have been steadily increasing since at least April of 2025.

In general, each plaintiff and declarant in this case has lived and worked in Ohio for several years, has substantial community ties, and no criminal history. Many have state IDs, work authorizations, and petitions for asylum or permanent residency pending. After being arrested while going about their daily lives, with few to no questions asked by immigration officers, they were shackled and transported to a field office for processing, and then driven to detention centers throughout the state and sometimes out of state, where they remained for weeks before they could request release on bond from an immigration judge.

The four plaintiffs have all been released from immigration detention on bond, but there is nothing to keep any of them from being subject to rearrest again. They now live in constant fear of being separated from their families and jailed again pursuant to Defendants’ unlawful policy.

Defendants’ practice violates the Immigration and Nationality Act under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) and Department of Homeland Security regulations under 8 C.F.R. §
287.8(c)(2)(ii). The certification of a class of similarly situated individuals who may be subject to arrest is necessary to prevent the continuing abuse of the law.

Plaintiffs Moises Javier Aguilar Peralta, F.M., S.T., and Jose Armando de Leon Zapata filed a Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Ohio in Columbus on March 18, 2026. Defendants are the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, Border Patrol, and each entities principal officers in their official capacity. The case was assigned to Chief Judge Sarah Morrison and Magistrate Judge Chelsea Vascura.

On March 23, Plaintiffs filed a motion for permission to proceed pseudonymously for Plaintiffs F.M., S.T., and several non-plaintiff witnesses. The Court granted the motion the next day. On April 15, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a class and a motion for a preliminary injunction. The court issued an order on a briefing schedule on April 21 and set a preliminary injunction hearing for the first week in June. A Rule 65.1 conference was held on April 23.

Defendants filed their opposition to the motions to certify a class and for a preliminary injunction, as well as a Motion to Dismiss, on May 6. On May 8, Plaintiffs moved to file a consolidated brief in response to the Motion to Dismiss and PI opposition, which was granted by the Court and the consolidated brief and the Reply in support of class certification were filed on May 18.

There were some disputes related to discovery, which were resolved by the court in a May 22 order.

On Jun 3, 4, and 5, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Three out of the four plaintiffs and two declarant witnesses testified in person through an interpreter. Two additional witnesses testified from their institutions of confinement, also through an interpreter. Plaintiffs also called on the director of a specialized immigration clinic, and two adversarial witnesses from Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement to testify. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Morrison directed parties to file Proposed Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law on June 17. Both parties filed their post hearing briefing on that date, and we now await a ruling on the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.