Connect with us

Politics

Border Patrol sued for tactics used in Kern County immigration raid

Published

on

Border Patrol sued for tactics used in Kern County immigration raid

ACLU attorneys representing the United Farm Workers and five Kern County residents have sued the head of the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Border Patrol officials, alleging the Border Patrol’s three-day raid in the southern San Joaquin Valley in early January amounted to a “fishing expedition” that indiscriminately targeted people of color who appeared to be farmworkers or day laborers.

The complaint, filed Wednesday in federal court in the Eastern District of California, alleges that agents from the Border Patrol’s El Centro sector violated protections afforded by federal law and the U.S. Constitution when they rounded up and deported scores of laborers in the country without legal authorization. It seeks class-action relief for everyone subjected to the tactics, which the lawsuit describes as “lawless sweeps, indiscriminate arrests, and coercive expulsions.”

“It’s clear that this was a coordinated operation intended to sweep up as many people as possible, not based on any individualized reason, but based on their apparent race, ethnicity or occupation; arrest them and expel as many of them from the country as possible, regardless of whether they knew their rights or the consequences,” said Bree Bernwanger, an attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, one of three ACLU affiliates representing plaintiffs in the case.

Asked to comment on the allegations, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said Border Patrol enforcement actions are “highly targeted.” Any alleged or potential misconduct by agents would be referred for investigation, the agency said.

A spokesperson for the Border Patrol’s El Centro sector said the agency does not comment on pending litigation.

Advertisement

The El Centro sector — headquartered more than 300 miles from Kern County’s sprawling farm fields and orchards — led the unusual January raid at the tail end of the Biden administration. Chief Agent Gregory Bovino, a 25-plus-year veteran who leads the Imperial County unit, headed up the operation without the involvement of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He is named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Three former Biden administration officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to share operational details, told The Times that Bovino “went rogue” with the January raid. No higher-ups knew about the operation before watching it unspool in real time, two of the former officials said.

In official statements, Bovino has justified the raid by noting that the sector’s area of responsibility stretches from the border to the Oregon line, “as mission and threat dictates.” Border Patrol officials have said the raid, dubbed Operation Return to Sender, resulted in the arrests of 78 immigrants in the country illegally, including a child rapist. The agency has not specified how many of the immigrants detained had criminal records.

Advocates on the scene, meanwhile, said the operation indiscriminately targeted Latino farmworkers commuting from the fields along California Route 99 and day laborers soliciting work in the parking lots of big box stores. They estimate close to 200 people were detained.

The Trump administration’s threat of mass immigration raids has sent shock waves across the Central Valley, where a largely immigrant workforce helps harvest a quarter of the food grown in the U.S.

Advertisement

(Brian van der Brug / Los Angeles Times)

According to the legal complaint, agents swarmed businesses where farmworkers and day laborers gather, and pulled over vehicles in predominantly Latino neighborhoods, targeting people of color and questioning them about their immigration status. The complaint accuses Border Patrol agents of employing multiple unlawful practices. Among them: detaining people without reasonable suspicion that they were in the country unlawfully, in violation of the 4th Amendment’s prohibitions on unreasonable searches and seizures.

If people declined to answer questions about their immigration status, according to the complaint, agents conducted searches without warrants or consent. In some cases, the complaint alleges, when people who had been pulled over in their cars declined to answer questions, agents responded by “smashing the car’s windows, slashing the car’s tires, and/or ordering or physically pulling people out of vehicles and handcuffing them.”

At the time of the raid, the U.S. Border Patrol said Operation Return to Sender “focused on interdicting those who have broken U.S. federal law, trafficking of dangerous substances, non-citizen criminals, and disrupting the transportation routes used by Transnational Criminal Organizations.”

Advertisement

Instead, according to the complaint, the operation swept up people with pending immigration applications, no criminal histories and established homes in the community. Many of those deported left behind spouses and U.S.-born children, advocates told The Times.

Under federal law, an immigration enforcement officer may, without a warrant, interrogate people about their right to be in the country, as long as people are not involuntarily detained for questioning. More intrusive encounters require reasonable suspicion that a crime is afoot, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The lawsuit offers multiple examples of people it contends were treated unlawfully during the January raid.

Wilder Munguia Esquivel, a 38-year-old Bakersfield resident who works as a day laborer and handyman, was standing outside Home Depot on Jan. 7 when agents in unmarked cars arrived, demanding to see people’s immigration papers, according to the complaint.

When Munguia Esquivel backed away, the complaint says, he was handcuffed and agents rifled through his wallet.

Advertisement

“At no point did the Border Patrol agent identify himself, explain to Mr. Munguia Esquivel why he had stopped him, explain why he had arrested him, or produce a warrant,” the complaint says. “At no point did he ask Mr. Munguia Esquivel about his family, employment or community ties, or undertake any evaluation of whether he posed a flight risk.”

Munguia Esquivel, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, was transported to El Centro and eventually released, according to the complaint.

But scores of other laborers detained in the raid were transported to the El Centro Station for processing, then pressured to sign voluntary deportation agreements, according to the complaint.

Agents coerced people into signing the agreements, the lawsuit says, by detaining them in holding cells without access to sleeping quarters, showers, hygiene products or sufficient food and denying them communication with attorneys or family members. It says agents directed people to sign their names on an electronic screen without informing them of their 5th Amendment right to an immigration hearing. They received a copy of the form they had signed only after they had been expelled to Mexico, it says.

At least 40 of the people arrested were expelled across the border after accepting voluntary departure, the complaint says.

Advertisement

President Trump ran for office promising the largest deportation effort in U.S. history, initially focusing his rhetoric on tracking down undocumented immigrants who have been accused of violent crimes. His administration now says it considers all immigrants in the U.S. without legal authorization to be criminals, because they have violated immigration laws.

The complaint asks the court to compel the Border Patrol and its parent agencies, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, to conduct operations in compliance with the Constitution and federal statutes.

“Without court intervention, we have every reason to expect that Operation Return to Sender was just the first example of what we will continue to see from Border Patrol,” Bernwanger said.

This article is part of The Times’ equity reporting initiative, funded by the James Irvine Foundation, exploring the challenges facing low-income workers and the efforts being made to address California’s economic divide.

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Published

on

Video: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

new video loaded: Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

transcript

transcript

Fed Chair Responds to Inquiry on Building Renovations

Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

“Good evening. This new threat is not about my testimony last June or about the renovation of the Federal Reserve buildings. This is about whether the Fed will be able to continue to set interest rates based on evidence and economic conditions, or whether instead, monetary policy will be directed by political pressure or intimidation.” “Well, thank you very much. We’re looking at the construction. Thank you.”

Advertisement
Federal prosecutors opened an investigation into whether Jerome H. Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, lied to Congress about the scope of renovations of the central bank’s buildings. He called the probe “unprecedented” in a rare video message.

By Nailah Morgan

January 12, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

Published

on

San Antonio ends its abortion travel fund after new state law, legal action

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

San Antonio has shut down its out-of-state abortion travel fund after a new Texas law that prohibits the use of public funds to cover abortions and a lawsuit from the state challenging the city’s fund.

City Council members last year approved $100,000 for its Reproductive Justice Fund to support abortion-related travel, prompting Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to sue over allegations that the city was “transparently attempting to undermine and subvert Texas law and public policy.”

Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit on Friday after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side.

WYOMING SUPREME COURT RULES LAWS RESTRICTING ABORTION VIOLATE STATE CONSTITUTION

Advertisement

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed victory in the lawsuit after the case was dismissed without a finding for either side. (Hannah Beier/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

“Texas respects the sanctity of unborn life, and I will always do everything in my power to prevent radicals from manipulating the system to murder innocent babies,” Paxton said in a statement. “It is illegal for cities to fund abortion tourism with taxpayer funds. San Antonio’s unlawful attempt to cover the travel and other expenses for out-of-state abortions has now officially been defeated.”

But San Antonio’s city attorney argued that the city did nothing wrong and pushed back on Paxton’s claim that the state won the lawsuit.

“This litigation was both initiated and abandoned by the State of Texas,” the San Antonio city attorney’s office said in a statement to The Texas Tribune. “In other words, the City did not drop any claims; the State of Texas, through the Texas Office of the Attorney General, dropped its claims.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said he will continue opposing the use of public funds for abortion-related travel. (Justin Lane/Reuters)

Advertisement

Paxton’s lawsuit argued that the travel fund violates the gift clause of the Texas Constitution. The state’s 15th Court of Appeals sided with Paxton and granted a temporary injunction in June to block the city from disbursing the fund while the case moved forward.

Gov. Greg Abbott in August signed into law Senate Bill 33, which bans the use of public money to fund “logistical support” for abortion. The law also allows Texas residents to file a civil suit if they believe a city violated the law.

“The City believed the law, prior to the passage of SB 33, allowed the uses of the fund for out-of-state abortion travel that were discussed publicly,” the city attorney’s office said in its statement. “After SB 33 became law and no longer allowed those uses, the City did not proceed with the procurement of those specific uses—consistent with its intent all along that it would follow the law.”

TRUMP URGES GOP TO BE ‘FLEXIBLE’ ON HYDE AMENDMENT, IGNITING BACKLASH FROM PRO-LIFE ALLIES

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law in August that blocks cities from using public money to help cover travel or other costs related to abortion. (Antranik Tavitian/Reuters)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The broader Reproductive Justice Fund remains, but it is restricted to non-abortion services such as home pregnancy tests, emergency contraception and STI testing.

The city of Austin also shut down its abortion travel fund after the law was signed. Austin had allocated $400,000 to its Reproductive Healthcare Logistics Fund in 2024 to help women traveling to other states for an abortion with funding for travel, food and lodging.

Continue Reading

Politics

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

Published

on

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta opts against running for governor. Again.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Sunday that he would not run for California governor, a decision grounded in his belief that his legal efforts combating the Trump administration as the state’s top prosecutor are paramount at this moment in history.

“Watching this dystopian horror come to life has reaffirmed something I feel in every fiber of my being: in this moment, my place is here — shielding Californians from the most brazen attacks on our rights and our families,” Bonta said in a statement. “My vision for the California Department of Justice is that we remain the nation’s largest and most powerful check on power.”

Bonta said that President Trump’s blocking of welfare funds to California and the fatal shooting of a Minnesota mother of three last week by a federal immigration agent cemented his decision to seek reelection to his current post, according to Politico, which first reported that Bonta would not run for governor.

Bonta, 53, a former state lawmaker and a close political ally to Gov. Gavin Newsom, has served as the state’s top law enforcement official since Newsom appointed him to the position in 2021. In the last year, his office has sued the Trump administration more than 50 times — a track record that would probably have served him well had he decided to run in a state where Trump has lost three times and has sky-high disapproval ratings.

Advertisement

Bonta in 2024 said that he was considering running. Then in February he announced he had ruled it out and was focused instead on doing the job of attorney general, which he considers especially important under the Trump administration. Then, both former Vice President Kamala Harris and Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) announced they would not run for governor, and Bonta began reconsidering, he said.

“I had two horses in the governor’s race already,” Bonta told The Times in November. “They decided not to get involved in the end. … The race is fundamentally different today, right?”

The race for California governor remains wide open. Newsom is serving the final year of his second term and is barred from running again because of term limits. Newsom has said he is considering a run for president in 2028.

Former Rep. Katie Porter — an early leader in polls — late last year faltered after videos emerged of her screaming at an aide and berating a reporter. The videos contributed to her dropping behind Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, a Republican, in a November poll released by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies and co-sponsored by The Times.

Porter rebounded a bit toward the end of the year, a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California showed, however none of the candidates has secured a majority of support and many voters remain undecided.

Advertisement

California hasn’t elected a Republican governor since 2006, Democrats heavily outnumber Republicans in the state, and many are seething with anger over Trump and looking for Democratic candidates willing to fight back against the current administration.

Bonta has faced questions in recent months about spending about $468,000 in campaign funds on legal advice last year as he spoke to federal investigators about alleged corruption involving former Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao, who was charged in an alleged bribery scheme involving local businessmen David Trung Duong and Andy Hung Duong. All three have pleaded not guilty.

According to his political consultant Dan Newman, Bonta — who had received campaign donations from the Duong family — was approached by investigators because he was initially viewed as a “possible victim” in the alleged scheme, though that was later ruled out. Bonta has since returned $155,000 in campaign contributions from the Duong family, according to news reports.

Bonta is the son of civil rights activists Warren Bonta, a white native Californian, and Cynthia Bonta, a native of the Philippines who immigrated to the U.S. on a scholarship in 1965. Bonta, a U.S. citizen, was born in Quezon City, Philippines, in 1972, when his parents were working there as missionaries, and immigrated with his family to California as an infant.

In 2012, Bonta was elected to represent Oakland, Alameda and San Leandro as the first Filipino American to serve in California’s Legislature. In Sacramento, he pursued a string of criminal justice reforms and developed a record as one of the body’s most liberal members.

Advertisement

Bonta is married to Assemblywoman Mia Bonta (D-Alameda), who succeeded him in the state Assembly, and the couple have three children.

Times staff writer Dakota Smith contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Trending