Two separate legal battles unfolding in federal courts this November have put the spotlight on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) practices and the contentious intersection of immigration enforcement and political oversight. In Oregon, a federal judge ruled that ICE’s random license plate checks led to the unlawful arrest of a Guatemalan man in Beaverton, raising questions about the agency’s methods and the rights of long-term residents. Meanwhile, in New Jersey, a prominent congresswoman is set to face trial after a judge refused to dismiss assault charges stemming from a heated confrontation with federal agents at an immigration detention center.
In Portland, Oregon, the case of J.Y.L.C., a 24-year-old Guatemalan man, has drawn attention to the use of random license plate checks by ICE officers. According to KATU, on November 8, 2025, ICE agents ran the license plate of J.Y.L.C. as part of a routine sweep, not targeting any specific individual or vehicle but rather selecting cars at random. The officers discovered a discrepancy: the vehicle’s registration address did not match the address ICE had on file for J.Y.L.C. This seemingly minor inconsistency set off a chain of events that would soon be challenged in federal court.
Court documents reveal that ICE immediately generated a warrant for J.Y.L.C.’s arrest, citing his failure to update his address as evidence that he posed a flight risk. He was pulled over, and, after admitting to driving without a license, was taken into custody. The agents also informed him that he had a deportation order, though his attorney, Nicholas Costa, disputed this claim. J.Y.L.C. was swiftly transported to the ICE detention facility in Tacoma, Washington, under Section 235(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, a law requiring immediate detention for certain immigrants pending removal proceedings.
However, as the case moved to the federal courts, U.S. District Judge Amy Baggio determined that this law did not apply to J.Y.L.C. The key reason, as detailed in court filings, was that J.Y.L.C. has been living in Oregon since 2017, having entered the United States at age 16. He filed for asylum in 2019 and, according to Costa, has maintained a legal presence in the state ever since. His asylum hearing is scheduled for December 2025. In the meantime, he works full-time in construction, supports his partner and their 13-month-old child, and, as Costa emphasized to KATU, “He’s got a social security number, he files his taxes, pays his bills, takes care of his kids. So, he’s doing everything right.”
The arrest hinged on an address change that J.Y.L.C. had neglected to update—a move his attorney described as an honest oversight. Costa told KATU, “He had no reason to lie. He truly believed that he had done nothing wrong. In fact, it was a little outrageous that the ICE attorney claimed that he had a removal order, and that was actually presented in the evidence that I submitted yesterday.”
Realizing the urgency of the situation, Costa acted quickly to protect his client’s rights. “To get this thing filed, we had nine minutes before they transferred my client from Oregon to Washington where the detention facility is, and had I not filed that within that small window of time, the judge wouldn’t have had jurisdiction and wouldn’t have been able to file the orders that she did,” Costa explained. Judge Baggio subsequently ordered ICE to provide J.Y.L.C. with a bond hearing by November 14 or release him. The bond hearing took place as scheduled, but due to the ICE facility closing its business hours before the family could pay bail, J.Y.L.C. remained detained until the office reopened on Monday, November 17.
“That bond order came after ICE was closed at 3 p.m., and so the family was not able to pay the bond, and so my client is still detained in Tacoma until Monday when the ICE office is opened at 9 a.m.,” Costa said. He added, “Now, granted, they’re still operating everywhere in Oregon and Beaverton, arresting people over the weekend, so it defies logic that they’re not open to receive a bond from my client to release him.” Once released, J.Y.L.C. is expected to appear for a hearing in Portland in December. The case has prompted renewed scrutiny of ICE’s enforcement tactics and the consequences for individuals navigating the complex web of immigration law.
While the Oregon case centers on the rights of an individual immigrant, a separate federal courtroom in Newark, New Jersey, is grappling with issues of congressional authority and the limits of oversight. U.S. Representative LaMonica McIver, a Democrat representing Newark, faces three counts of assaulting, resisting, impeding, and interfering with federal officials after a confrontation during a May 2025 visit to the Delaney Hall immigration detention center. According to Shore News Network, the incident occurred as McIver and local officials were touring the facility. During the visit, federal agents attempted to detain the mayor, prompting McIver to allegedly physically interfere with the agents’ actions.
On November 13, 2025, U.S. District Judge Jamel Semper denied McIver’s motion to dismiss the charges, rejecting her claim that the prosecution was an act of retaliation. Judge Semper wrote that McIver had failed to demonstrate that her conduct was connected to a legitimate legislative purpose, noting that “no legislative objective was served by McIver’s alleged attempts to physically oppose the arrest of a local official during the visit.” Prosecutors maintain that McIver disrupted an enforcement action and disregarded instructions from federal agents assigned to the facility.
McIver has pleaded not guilty and continues to contest the allegations. She insists that her actions were motivated by her responsibilities as a representative for constituents concerned about conditions at the detention center. In a statement reported by Shore News Network, McIver argued that the case is “an effort to deter her from performing her responsibilities.” She further expressed concern that the ruling could embolden federal agencies and vowed to continue opposing the charges.
Judge Semper’s ruling leaves open the possibility that McIver may still seek dismissal on other grounds, as motions continue to work their way through the court. No trial date has been set. The case has sparked debate over the balance between congressional oversight and the authority of federal law enforcement, with some observers cautioning against chilling the ability of elected officials to advocate for their communities, while others emphasize the importance of upholding the rule of law within government facilities.
Both cases—one involving an immigrant facing sudden detention over a bureaucratic misstep, the other a congresswoman confronting federal agents over the treatment of detainees—underscore the ongoing tensions that define America’s immigration system. As the legal processes unfold, the outcomes may well shape the boundaries of federal power, individual rights, and the responsibilities of those elected to serve.