Attorneys and legal advocates in Oregon are mounting an aggressive challenge against the detention of 23-year-old firefighter Rigoberto Hernández Hernández, who was arrested by U.S. Border Patrol agents while actively fighting the Bear Gulch wildfire in Washington this past August. Their efforts, announced at a press conference on September 19, 2025, have sparked a heated debate over immigration enforcement, longstanding federal policies, and the treatment of essential workers in disaster zones.
The case has drawn national attention, with Hernández’s legal team filing both a Habeas Corpus petition and a Temporary Restraining Order to secure his release from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Tacoma. According to KATU News, Hernández was apprehended at an extremely remote, federally managed emergency fire zone—a place where, by Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, immigration enforcement actions are explicitly prohibited. The attorneys argue that the arrest not only violated this policy but also trampled on Hernández’s constitutional rights.
Issa Peña, director of strategy at Innovation Law Lab, explained the gravity of the situation: “The arrest of firefighters battling Washington's largest wildfire drew national criticism and violated a longstanding agency policy prohibiting immigration enforcement at disaster response sites. The unlawful and dangerous actions of ICE, Border Patrol, and Homeland Security under this administration have caused chaos, instilled fear in communities, and torn families apart.”
Rodrigo Fernández-Ortega, one of Hernández’s attorneys, further detailed the circumstances, stating, “The federal agents appeared at the extremely remote location in the blockaded fire emergency zone managed by the federal government, where firefighter crews were assigned to work to conduct an immigration inspection. This violated long-standing Department of Homeland Security policy that prohibits immigration enforcement at disaster response sites.”
According to court filings, Hernández invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent during the encounter. Despite this, federal agents proceeded to arrest him—allegedly without any warrant or reasonable suspicion. The legal team contends that the arrest was motivated by Hernández’s Latino ethnicity and his exercise of constitutional rights. As stated in the court documents, “the only reason Border Patrol agents arrested Mr. Hernandez is because he is Latino and had the courage to invoke and maintain his right to remain silent. Neither of these reasons, standing alone or together, justifies arrest.”
Hernández’s ordeal did not end with his arrest. His attorneys allege that federal agents kept him out of contact for more than 48 hours after his detention, a move that further complicated his legal defense and family communication. ICE reportedly began removal proceedings against him without notifying him of the charges—a step that, according to his legal team, violates due process. To make matters more opaque, Hernández does not appear in ICE’s public-facing detainee locator, raising concerns about transparency and accountability within the detention system.
Unable to attend the press conference himself, Hernández relayed a statement through one of his attorneys: “I want to be able to continue to protect the land, the wildlife, and the people of this country.” His words underscore a central irony in the case—while risking his life to safeguard communities from wildfire, Hernández found himself entangled in a legal battle with the very government he was serving.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) declined to comment on the specifics of the case, citing active litigation. A spokesperson told KATU, “As a matter of policy, CBP does not comment on active or pending litigation.”
The controversy has also exposed deep divisions within Oregon’s political landscape. Mike Slagle, Chairman of the Marion County Republicans, voiced a different perspective, suggesting that the state’s sanctuary policies and employer practices contribute to confusion and legal risk for immigrants. “I welcome all immigrants. But Oregon has this policy [to be a sanctuary state] that makes it hard for [immigrants] to understand where they stand, and I wish it was more clear for them,” Slagle remarked. He added, “It falls back on the employer that they should really check to make sure that the employees that they hire, especially if for federal contracts, are legally here.”
Beyond the legal wrangling, the conditions inside the Tacoma ICE facility have come under fire. Jordan Cunnings, Legal Director at Innovation Law Lab, described the situation bluntly: “My understanding is, yes, the detention centers are overcrowded and they've always been unsafe, unsanitary, and the functional equivalent of prison.” These allegations echo longstanding concerns about the treatment of detainees in U.S. immigration facilities, which have been criticized for inadequate sanitation, overcrowding, and limited access to legal representation.
The Department of Homeland Security has pushed back forcefully against the narrative advanced by Hernández’s supporters. In a statement provided to KATU by Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin, DHS characterized the legal challenge as “nothing more than a desperate Hail Mary attempt to keep a criminal illegal alien, charged with delivery and selling of methamphetamine, in our country.” The statement went further, denying that any active firefighters were apprehended: “The two illegal aliens apprehended were NOT firefighters. The two contracted work crews questioned on the day of their arrests were not even assigned to actively fight the fire; they were there in a support role, cutting logs into firewood. The firefighting response remained uninterrupted the entire time. No active firefighters were even questioned, and U.S. Border Patrol's actions did not prevent or interfere with any personnel actively engaged in firefighting efforts. The mainstream media is once again spreading fake news about federal law enforcement efforts.”
However, KATU confirmed that two firefighters were, in fact, arrested at the site of the Bear Gulch Fire. When pressed for clarification on whether the DHS statement referred to Hernández or the other firefighter, the agency declined to respond. Meanwhile, Innovation Law Lab maintains that the only criminal conviction on Hernández’s record is a misdemeanor for speed racing—contradicting DHS claims of more serious criminal activity.
The case has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over immigration enforcement, sanctuary policies, and the rights of essential workers. For some, it highlights the dangers of conflating disaster response with immigration crackdowns, potentially deterring immigrants from participating in vital public service roles. For others, it raises questions about the integrity of state and federal hiring practices and the importance of upholding immigration laws, especially for those working on federal contracts.
As the legal battle continues, Hernández’s future—and the policies governing disaster response and immigration enforcement—remain uncertain. What’s clear is that the case has reignited longstanding tensions over who gets to serve, who gets protected, and how the nation balances security with compassion.
