A federal judge in California has barred Border Patrol agents from arresting someone suspected of living in the U.S. illegally unless they have a warrant or a reason to believe the person might flee before a warrant can be obtained.
Tuesday's ruling from U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston also says Border Patrol agents can’t stop people without having reasonable suspicion or return them to their countries of origin via “voluntary departure” unless that person is informed of their rights and agrees to leave. The ruling only applies to people within the court's Eastern District of California, Thurston said, where dozens of people were swept up in January after the Border Patrol launched an immigration enforcement action dubbed “Operation Return to Sender."
The American Civil Liberties Union sued Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Border Patrol officials on behalf of the labor union United Farm Workers and people who were targeted during the Border Patrol raids.
The ACLU said border patrol agents spent nearly a week unconstitutionally detaining people who “appeared to be farmworkers or day laborers, regardless of their actual immigration status or individual circumstances.” The detainees were bussed to the border, held without any way to contact family or attorneys, and coerced into signing papers that said they had waived their right to see an immigration judge and voluntarily agreed to leave the country, the ACLU said.
“The evidence before the Court is that Border Patrol agents under DHS authority engaged in conduct that violated well-established constitutional rights,” Thurston wrote. She said the Border Patrol would have to provide a report showing exactly who is detained or arrested without warrants, and why, every 60 days until the lawsuit is concluded.
Attorneys for the Border Patrol had argued the judge lacked jurisdiction to consider the case, because federal law says that immigration matters can generally only be appealed once an immigration judge has issued a final order. Besides, the government’s attorneys said, the lawsuit is moot because the U.S. Border Patrol has already issued new guidance and training to its agents detailing exactly when people may be stopped or arrested without warrants, and what rights detainees have after their arrest.
But Thurston said the Border Patrol can't claim the lawsuit is moot simply because it issued a new policy after it was sued. The language in the new policy isn't strong enough to guard against the illegal stops, Thurston said, and there is no reason to believe that the policy wouldn't be changed again in the future.
FILE - Border Patrol agents wait for the arrival of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for a visit to the US-Mexico border in Sunland Park, N.M., Feb. 3, 2025. (AP Photo/Andres Leighton, FIle)
FILE - Border Patrol agents and members of the military look towards Tijuana, Mexico, as they stand between two border walls, March 21, 2025, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Gregory Bull, File)
A decision by a Paris labor court in the financial dispute between Kylian Mbappé and his former club Paris Saint-Germain is expected on Tuesday — the latest chapter in a judicial saga involving colossal sums.
Lawyers argued last month before the Conseil de prud’hommes de Paris, with each side demanding hundreds of millions of euros from the other regarding the end of the player’s contract before his move to Real Madrid in the summer of 2024.
Amid accusations of betrayal and harassment surrounding the breakdown of their relationship, Mbappé's lawyers claimed PSG owes him more than 260 million euros ($305 million). They argue his fixed-term contract should be reclassified as a permanent one, triggering compensation for unfair dismissal and unpaid wages. They have also alleged moral harassment and undeclared work.
PSG, meanwhile, is seeking 440 million euros from Mbappé, citing damages and a “loss of opportunity” after he left on a free transfer.
Tuesday's decision can be appealed and is unlikely to end the dispute. The panel may also decide to decline jurisdiction or to adjourn the case to a later hearing, sitting in parity with a tie-breaking judge if no majority emerges.
The ruling may have broader consequences for player contracts and labor law in French soccer, even as PSG maintains that Mbappé’s request to reclassify his contract as a permanent one is without legal basis.
The club argues that professional players’ contracts are a special form of fixed-term agreements regulated by the sports code and validated by the French professional league, in accordance with both French and European Union law. Mbappé’s legal team disagrees, saying the reclassification of a fixed-term contract into a permanent contract is a standard procedure when legal conditions for a fixed-term deal are not fulfilled.
The relationship between the 2018 World Cup winner and the reigning European champion turned bitter when Mbappé decided in 2023 not to extend his contract, which was set to expire in summer 2024.
This deprived the club of a juicy transfer fee despite having offered him the most lucrative contract in club history when he signed a new deal in 2022. He was sidelined from a preseason tour and forced to train with fringe players. He missed the opening league game but returned to the lineup for a final season after discussions with the club — talks that are central to the dispute.
The club accuses Mbappé of backing out of an August 2023 agreement that allegedly included a pay reduction should he leave on a free transfer, an arrangement PSG says was meant to protect its financial stability. PSG claims Mbappé hid his decision not to extend his contract for nearly 11 months, from July 2022 to June 2023, preventing the club from arranging a transfer and causing major financial harm. It accuses him of violating contractual obligations and the principles of good faith and loyalty.
Mbappé’s camp insists PSG has never produced evidence that the striker agreed to forego any payment. His lawyers claim the club failed to pay wages and bonuses for April, May, and June 2024. They are also seeking reclassification of his fixed-term contract into a permanent one, which would trigger compensation. Mbappé also accuses PSG of moral harassment, citing his treatment when sidelined. His total claim exceeds 260 million euros, combining unpaid salary, contractual bonuses, severance, indemnities, and damages for workplace misconduct.
PSG rejects all accusations of harassment, highlighting that Mbappé took part in over 94% of matches in 2023–24 and always worked under conditions compliant with the Professional Football Charter.
PSG is seeking a total of 440 million euros in damages, including 180 million euros for the lost opportunity to transfer Mbappé because he left as a free agent after declining a 300 million euros offer from Saudi club Al-Hilal in July 2023.
Mbappé joined Real Madrid in the summer of 2024 on a free transfer after scoring a club-record 256 goals in seven years at PSG, which won the Champions League this year without him.
FILE - PSG striker Kylian Mbappe, right, and PSG president Nasser Al-Al-Khelaifi attend a press conference Monday, May 23, 2022 at the Paris des Princes stadium in Paris. (AP Photo/Michel Spingler, File)
FILE - PSG President Nasser Al-Khelaifi, left, speaks to PSG's Kylian Mbappe as it is announced he has signed a three year extension to his contract, at the Parc des Princes stadium in Paris, France, Saturday, May 21, 2022. (AP Photo/Michel Spingler, File)
