ACLU of Ohio and allied civil-rights groups have taken federal immigration authorities to court, filing a federal class-action lawsuit in Columbus on March 18, 2026. The suit accuses federal immigration agencies of carrying out warrantless arrests and prolonged detentions across Ohio and asks a federal judge to certify a class of everyone arrested without a judicial warrant for alleged immigration violations since April 22, 2025. The complaint seeks to bar the practice going forward and to force agencies to purge records gathered from those encounters. Plaintiffs say many of the arrests skipped individualized flight-risk evaluations and leaned on administrative rather than judicial authority.
According to The Columbus Dispatch, the complaint names the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection as defendants and calls out senior officials by name, including former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, along with CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott, U.S. Border Patrol chief Michael Banks and Robert Lynch, the acting ICE field office director for enforcement and removal operations in Detroit.
The suit lists four individual Ohio plaintiffs and lays out several arrests that, according to the filing, show a broader pattern. The complaint highlights the case of Jose Armando de Leon Zapata, who was arrested Sept. 30, 2025 and held for about three weeks before being released, and an individual identified only as “F.M.” who was arrested April 22, 2025 in Sandusky and spent roughly five weeks detained before release on bond. Other examples are drawn from Ohio cases as well. ACLU of Ohio Chief Legal Officer Freda Levenson told the paper, “we urge the court to enjoin this cruel and unlawful abuse of our neighbors.”
What plaintiffs are asking for
Per the complaint, the plaintiffs want class certification that covers all people arrested without a warrant for alleged immigration violations since April 22, 2025. They are asking for a court order that bars federal agents from making warrantless arrests without probable cause and requires deletion of records obtained from those arrests. The filings also seek a requirement that agents conduct individualized assessments of flight risk before any prolonged detention and a prohibition on using administrative arrest authorities as a stand-in for judicial warrants. The complaint alleges that Ohio immigration facilities held roughly 670 people as of February 2026, a number the plaintiffs say reflects the scope of recent enforcement activity in the state.
How this fits a national pattern
The Columbus case lands amid a broader wave of legal challenges to expanded ICE and CBP enforcement tactics following federal policy changes in 2025 that loosened limits on operations in so-called sensitive locations. National trackers and legal analysts have cataloged multiple lawsuits against the administration over similar tactics, including claims focused on warrantless street stops and large-scale enforcement sweeps. Just Security has been tracking related litigation, and recent rulings in other districts have sharply questioned the legality of some surge-era stops, including a decision covered in a story that torches ICE over race-based street stops.
Legal stakes for Ohio
If the judge grants class status and the injunctive relief the plaintiffs seek, the resulting order could narrow how ICE, CBP and Border Patrol carry out arrests inside Ohio and could require the agencies to purge records connected to warrantless detentions. The Columbus filing follows a line of litigation in the district that has previously named senior DHS officials in challenges to immigration enforcement policy, underscoring how advocates are testing those policies in federal court. For additional context, see an earlier related docket listing in the Southern District of Ohio via Justia Dockets.
What happens next
The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in Columbus, after which defendants will be served and the court will set a schedule for responses and for any motions that seek preliminary relief. ACLU attorneys in similar cases often move quickly for preliminary injunctions when they allege ongoing constitutional harms, and the federal government typically pushes back by invoking enforcement prerogatives and operational necessity. Whatever happens in the early rounds, the case has the potential to shape how, and where, federal immigration agents may operate in Ohio going forward.
The Columbus filing adds to the growing evidence that federal courtrooms will remain a central battleground over the line between administrative arrest powers and the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and probable-cause protections.
