On December 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell issued a landmark ruling that has sent shockwaves through the legal and immigrant rights communities in the nation’s capital. Howell’s opinion, which sharply limits warrantless immigration arrests in Washington, D.C., takes direct aim at the Trump administration’s aggressive enforcement tactics—methods that, according to multiple reports, have disproportionately targeted Latino residents and often ignored basic legal safeguards.
The ruling was prompted by a lawsuit filed by civil liberties and immigrant rights organizations against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to the Associated Press, these groups argued that federal officers were routinely patrolling neighborhoods with large Latino populations, setting up checkpoints, and arresting individuals without warrants or even an assessment of whether those individuals posed a flight risk. The plaintiffs—many of whom are Latino residents lawfully present in the United States—claimed they were racially profiled and detained solely on the basis of their appearance or language, not on any concrete evidence of immigration violations.
Judge Howell’s injunction bars Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers from making civil immigration arrests in D.C. without probable cause that the individual poses a flight risk if not immediately detained. Howell’s opinion draws a sharp distinction between “stops”—brief encounters with law enforcement that the Supreme Court has previously ruled on—and full-fledged arrests, which involve handcuffs and prolonged detention. “The court majority merely issued a one-paragraph order granting a stay without any explanation for its holding,” Howell wrote, referring to an earlier Supreme Court shadow-docket order, Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, that the Trump administration had relied upon. “Bluntly put, why the court ruled as it did remains unclear—and without reasoning, this order cannot even be considered as persuasive.”
According to the Washington Post, more than 80 percent of the 932 immigration arrests in D.C. during Trump’s recent crackdown involved individuals with no criminal record whatsoever. This pattern of enforcement, Judge Howell found, amounted to what many critics have described as a “terror campaign”—one that is not only deeply disruptive to families and communities but, in Howell’s view, largely illegal.
In a conversation on Slate’s Amicus Plus podcast, legal journalist Dahlia Lithwick summarized Howell’s findings: “Judge Howell blocked warrantless immigration arrests without probable cause and held that Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection have been systematically breaking the law by arresting people because they … pretty much just look Latino.” Lithwick’s co-host, Mark Joseph Stern, added that the plaintiffs in the case were “essentially abducted off the street by masked and heavily armed agents, many of whom were not even wearing uniforms or badges.” Some plaintiffs, Stern noted, “literally thought they were being kidnapped because, in essence, they were.”
The lawsuit’s allegations were supported by sworn declarations and public statements from administration officials. CBP chief Greg Bovino was quoted as saying, “You notice I did not say probable cause, nor did I say I need a warrant. We need reasonable suspicion of illegal alienage.” Tricia McLaughlin, principal communications adviser to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, echoed this sentiment, stating that agents only needed “reasonable suspicion” to make arrests—not probable cause. When pressed in court, government lawyers attempted to distance themselves from these statements, suggesting that the officials “don’t necessarily understand” legal terms like reasonable suspicion and probable cause and may have been misstating the policy. Judge Howell was not persuaded, responding pointedly: “This is a remarkable assertion. On its face, the government’s defense appears to be that the individuals behind these statements are ignorant or incompetent, or both. These statements, however, were made by high-ranking officials … in their official capacity to the press, on DHS’s official website, and on DHS’s official social media account.”
Further complicating matters, after a hearing in this very case, DHS issued an official statement that flatly contradicted its own lawyers, reiterating that agents relied on reasonable suspicion, not probable cause. “Everything on the record showed they are not using probable cause,” Stern explained on Amicus Plus.
Judge Howell’s ruling is careful but forceful. She stopped short of requiring probable cause that a suspected immigrant is undocumented, reserving judgment on that issue for future proceedings. Howell explained her caution by noting the government’s argument in a previous Supreme Court case—that district courts should not micromanage field agents or subject them to endless contempt proceedings for innocent mistakes. As a result, her injunction is narrowly tailored: it bars arrests without probable cause that the individual poses a flight risk, but leaves open the possibility of further restrictions should additional evidence emerge.
The legal backdrop to this ruling is complex and rapidly evolving. Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, officers may make arrests without a warrant only if they have probable cause to believe the person is in the United States illegally and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. Plaintiffs in this case argued that agents must have probable cause twice over: first, that the individual is undocumented, and second, that they pose a flight risk. Judge Howell’s decision affirms the flight risk requirement but leaves the first prong unresolved for now.
This ruling is just the latest in a series of judicial rebukes to the Trump administration’s immigration policies. In October, Magistrate Judge Jeffrey I. Cummings issued a similar order against warrantless arrests in Chicago. And only last month, a federal judge ordered President Trump to remove National Guard troops from D.C., ruling the deployment unlawful—a move that came days before a tragic shooting involving Guard troops in the city. According to Get Up Mornings with Erica Campbell, hundreds of National Guard troops were also slated for removal from Chicago and Portland after similar judicial findings.
The broader context is one of mounting concern over civil liberties and the rule of law. Critics argue that the administration’s approach to immigration enforcement has blurred the lines between lawful policing and racial profiling. The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups have cited not only the D.C. case but also a series of class action lawsuits in cities like Chicago, where ICE agents have been accused of “blatant and explicit” racial profiling—snatching up Latino citizens at random from public spaces.
For those caught up in these sweeps, the consequences have been severe. Plaintiffs described being detained for hours without access to basic medical care, forced to sleep in freezing rooms without bedding, and hearing agents boast about receiving bonuses for making arrests under Trump’s policies. As one observer put it, “It’s like a fascist, authoritarian, and deeply racist administration can’t even violate people’s civil rights in peace anymore.”
Judge Howell’s decision stands as a significant check on these practices—at least for now—in the nation’s capital. While the administration is likely to appeal, the ruling offers immediate protection for D.C. residents who might otherwise face arbitrary and potentially unlawful detention. It also signals a broader judicial willingness to scrutinize—and, when necessary, restrain—executive overreach in the realm of immigration enforcement.
As the legal battles continue to play out, the stakes remain high for immigrant communities and for the country’s broader commitment to constitutional protections. Judge Howell’s ruling may not have resolved every issue, but it has undoubtedly raised the bar for what federal agents must show before depriving someone of their liberty on the streets of Washington, D.C.