A federal judge has blocked Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita from enforcing a sweeping records demand against Exodus Refugee Immigration, ruling that the investigation was likely retaliation for the nonprofit's protected speech. The order halts a Civil Investigative Demand that sought years of internal communications, client files and donor records from the organization, which helps refugees and other humanitarian immigrants resettle across Indiana through legal aid, employment assistance, housing help and language education.
In a 48-page order, U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt found that the state's attempt to tie its demand to a labor-trafficking investigation was "tenuous" and "pretextual," according to Indiana Public Media. Pratt's preliminary injunction, issued this week out of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, bars Rokita's office from taking any action against Exodus or enforcing the demand while the underlying lawsuit proceeds.
Judge Cites Retaliation, Not Trafficking, Behind the Probe
According to WIBC 93.1 FM, the court found that Exodus's protected First Amendment speech played a central role in Rokita's decision to launch the inquiry. The ruling highlighted the suspicious timing of the demand, the weak connection between it and Rokita's stated labor-trafficking rationale, and what it called the extraordinary breadth of the records sought.
Exodus CEO Cole Varga told WIBC that the investigation undermined the trust his organization has built with the people it serves, saying clients trust Exodus to help them build safe, stable lives in Indiana. Varga added that he hoped the attorney general would instead focus on serving Indiana residents rather than targeting immigrant neighbors and allies.
A Records Demand That Reached Into Client Files
The Civil Investigative Demand itself was extraordinarily broad, according to Indiana Daily Student. It contained 39 interrogatories and 28 document requests seeking three years of Exodus's internal communications and phone records, plus confidential client information including Social Security numbers, job placements and housing addresses. Exodus argued that turning over those records would breach attorney-client privilege and client confidentiality.
Exodus filed its federal lawsuit, Exodus Refugee Immigration, Inc. v. Todd Rokita, in the Southern District of Indiana about 10 days after receiving the demand, per The Indiana Citizen. It was the first lawsuit challenging Rokita's use of investigative demands against a nonprofit group.
State's Stated Trigger: An ICE Operation in Bloomington
Rokita's office has said its inquiry into Exodus began after ICE reported "complications and interference" during a September 2025 operation in Monroe County, which it tied to coordinated local notifications in Bloomington, according to WFYI. Exodus had notified local service providers about a potential ICE operation and temporarily closed its Bloomington office to protect clients.
To justify the demand, Rokita cited authority under Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, asserting his office was investigating potential human and labor trafficking among entities interacting with immigrants, Indiana Daily Student reported. He has maintained that such demands are pre-lawsuit fact-finding tools rather than formal accusations of wrongdoing.
One of Many Demands Across Indiana
The Exodus demand was not an isolated move. Since late 2024, Rokita has issued similar investigative demands to a range of public and private entities, including the Cass County Health Department, Logansport Community School Corporation, Tent Partnership for Refugees, Berry Global Group and the Jackson County Industrial Development Corporation, per The Indiana Citizen.
One of those demands, sent to the Evansville-based God is Good Foundation, led that nonprofit to halt its refugee assistance work entirely, Indiana Daily Student reported — a detail Exodus cited in its own federal complaint.
A Pattern of Setbacks in State and Federal Court
Rokita's labor-trafficking demands have already run into trouble elsewhere in the state. In December 2025, Vanderburgh Circuit Court Judge Robert Pigman blocked similar demands against Amcor and The Haitian Center of Evansville, ruling that the attorney general lacked statutory reasonable cause, according to The Indiana Lawyer.
This isn't the first time Exodus has taken on Indiana's executive branch in federal court. In 2015, the organization successfully sued to block then-Governor Mike Pence from barring state agencies from distributing resettlement funds to Syrian refugees, with federal courts ultimately ruling the directive violated the Equal Protection Clause, WFYI reported at the time.
A Broader Fight Over Immigration Enforcement
The dispute comes amid broader friction between Rokita and Exodus over federal immigration policy. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the termination of Temporary Protected Status for thousands of Haitian and Syrian immigrants in Indiana, a decision Rokita praised while Exodus's legal representatives warned it would severely disrupt local families and workers, according to Indianapolis Business Journal. An estimated tens of thousands of Haitian immigrants live and work in Indiana communities such as Logansport.
The Exodus case also fits into a wider pattern of legal fights between Rokita's office and local entities over immigration enforcement. The attorney general has sparred with officials in a Merrillville ICE deal dispute and faced a Monroe County sheriff's ICE lawsuit over jail policies.
What Happens Next
Stevie Pactor, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Indiana, said the investigation sought information about Exodus's clients, partners and work in an effort to intimidate the organization and silence protected speech, and said the ACLU would seek final judgment against the attorney general's actions. The preliminary injunction will remain in place while Exodus's lawsuit seeking a permanent end to the demand moves forward, WIBC reported. It remains unclear whether Rokita's office will appeal Pratt's ruling to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals or press ahead toward a full trial on Exodus's First Amendment claims.
