9th Circuit Lifts Injunction Blocking Border Patrol Detentions in California’s Central Valley

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday lifted a preliminary injunction that had barred U.S. Border Patrol officers from detaining people without reasonable suspicion they had violated immigration law in California’s Central Valley.

The unanimous four-page order in United Farm Workers of America et al. v. Noem et al. sent the case back to U.S. District Judge Jennifer Thurston for a limited determination of whether the plaintiffs have standing to seek forward-looking relief. “Without assurance of standing, we lift the preliminary injunction,” the panel wrote.

The lawsuit, filed in February 2025 by the United Farm Workers and several farmworkers with ACLU representation, challenged a three-day Border Patrol operation in January 2025 around Kern County. Plaintiffs alleged agents detained people without reasonable suspicion in violation of the Fourth Amendment and arrested them without probable cause they were likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained, contrary to 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). Thurston issued the injunction in April 2025 covering the Eastern District of California.

The appeals court held that the district court had considered only allegations of past harm. Past injury can support a claim for damages, the panel said, but it does not by itself establish standing for prospective injunctive relief. Plaintiffs seeking that kind of order must show a sufficient likelihood they will suffer future injury. Standing is a jurisdictional requirement that cannot be waived.

The 9th Circuit retained jurisdiction over the appeal and stayed further proceedings while Thurston addresses the standing question. The parties must notify the appeals court within five days of her ruling; if she has not ruled within 120 days they must file a status report. The panel noted that if new allegations of harm arise during the remand, nothing prevents the district court from considering additional requests for relief.

The decision does not resolve the underlying claims that Border Patrol violated constitutional or statutory rights. It does restore, for now, the agency’s ability to conduct stops and detentions in the region without the constraints of the injunction while the standing issue is re-examined. The case remains live.