The Department of Homeland Security is named as the defendant in the lawsuit, which was filed in the Eastern District of New York on April 8, 2026, on behalf of eight immigrants from throughout the state. Its coalition, which includes the Legal Aid Society, Make the Road New York, and the New York ACLU, does not file cases carelessly. According to the complaint, ICE and other federal immigration agencies have been engaging in Fourth and Fifth Amendment-violating stops, sweeps, and arrests, using perceived Latino ethnicity as the basis for detention rather than specific suspicion or valid warrants. This is the first lawsuit of its kind in New York, according to the New York Law Journal.

Quintero’s experiences are similar to those described by the other plaintiffs in the case. On his way home from work, a 36-year-old Hispanic man was apprehended as he entered his own apartment complex in Bushwick, Brooklyn. On his way to catch the Long Island Rail Road in Hempstead, a 24-year-old Hispanic man who graduated from CUNY was taken into custody. They all had no criminal histories. There was no active warrant against any of them. Following urgent legal interventions, all three were freed. According to the lawsuit, their arrests were instances of a pattern rather than an anomaly.

Key Information: Benitez v. Department of Homeland Security

There is a number associated with that pattern. Between October 2025 and March 2026, 800 New Yorkers who were not the intended targets of immigration operations were arrested in the city, according to reporting by THE CITY, an independent newsroom whose work is referenced in the complaint itself. The individuals in custody had no prior criminal history in 85% of those cases. That number is startling not only in terms of civil rights issues but also in terms of the practical question of what these arrests were based on. According to the administration’s stated stance, agents follow the Fourth Amendment by acting with reasonable suspicion. According to the complaint, the evidence presents a different picture.

A concurring opinion written by Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2025 in response to an emergency order involving immigration raids at Home Depot locations in Los Angeles serves as the foundation for the legal framework of what the plaintiffs refer to as “Kavanaugh stops”. According to Kavanaugh’s opinion, factors such as language, ethnicity, and type of work could be used by federal immigration officials to determine whether an individual may be in the country illegally, but they should not be the only basis. Somewhere between the court and the street, the subtlety of that opinion—differentiating between one factor among several and the only factor—seems to have been lost. The street arrests that followed were referred to by immigration advocates as “Kavanaugh stops,” a term that has become popular in the legal and advocacy communities as a shorthand for a practice that they contend the original opinion did not actually authorize.

A categorical denial came from the Department of Homeland Security. A spokesperson stated, “Any allegations ICE law enforcement engages in racial profiling are FALSE,” adding that the agency operates under federal authority and applies probable cause and reasonable suspicion in accordance with constitutional standards. That is the expected response, and it doesn’t solve much. A court will eventually be asked to look at the difference between “we follow the law” and “there are 800 arrests in five months, 85 percent involving people with no criminal record.”

Speaking with people who work in New York’s immigrant communities, it seems that no legal filing fully captures the fear these enforcement practices have created. For those who appear Latino and speak Spanish in public, everyday life has changed in Bushwick, Hempstead, and the Staten Island neighborhoods where dominoes are played on the sidewalks on Tuesday afternoons. It’s more difficult and crucial to determine whether that fear is a byproduct of lawful enforcement or the intentional result of an enforcement strategy meant to stifle movement and cooperation with authorities.

The complaint is clear about what it wants the courts to do. It contends that even noncitizens are entitled to equal treatment as individuals rather than as members of an ethnic group, challenging both racial profiling and warrantless arrests as violations of federal constitutional and statutory law. Together with the civil legal organizations, the plaintiffs are represented by Covington & Burling lawyers. This combination of business and public interest legal power shows how seriously the coalition is taking the case.

The Eastern District’s procedural approach to the complaint and the potential timeliness of a judge’s decision regarding any request for injunctive relief remain unclear. Depending on the court and the situation, federal immigration litigation has progressed at different rates. The current administration has demonstrated a willingness to both fight and, in certain cases, lose these cases. Earlier this year, an Oregon court banned warrantless immigration detentions and arrests. The New York case is better supported by publicly available data, has a more expansive class action scope, and is more explicit in its accusations of racial profiling. It contributes to the national picture by providing a specific, in-depth description of this enforcement from the sidewalk up in the nation’s largest and most documented immigrant city.

The post ICE Racially Profiling New York Immigrants? Inside the Explosive New Federal Lawsuit appeared first on Creative Learning Guild.