Alabama worker sues ICE after two workplace arrests, alleges warrantless raids and racial targeting

By Nick Ravenshade — NENC Media Group
October 2, 2025

MOBILE, Ala. — An Alabama construction worker who says he was detained twice by federal immigration officers in separate workplace raids filed a sweeping federal lawsuit this week, accusing the Department of Homeland Security and agents operating in the Gulf Coast region of conducting warrantless, racially motivated raids that have unlawfully swept up U.S. citizens and legal residents. The complaint — filed Sept. 30 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama — asks a judge to block the enforcement policies it says permit the raids and seeks damages for the plaintiff and a proposed class of similarly affected workers.

The plaintiff, 26-year-old Leonardo “Leo” Garcia Venegas of Baldwin County, alleges that immigration officers arrested and detained him despite repeatedly asserting his U.S. citizenship and producing an Alabama REAL ID — a secure identity card issued only to citizens and lawful residents — during both encounters earlier this year. Video of one May raid shows agents forcing a man to the ground as he insists he is a citizen, and the complaint says the conduct reflects policies that authorize warrantless entries, preemptive detention and continued detention even after a person produces proof of lawful status.

Federal officials immediately pushed back on the characterization. A Department of Homeland Security statement quoted by news outlets dismissed the lawsuit as “race-baiting opportunism,” and agency spokespeople said arrests are made on the basis of reasonable suspicion of unlawful presence rather than on the basis of race or appearance. Still, the lawsuit and the widely shared video have amplified scrutiny of aggressive immigration enforcement tactics that have expanded under the current administration and prompted civil-rights groups and local advocates to call for closer oversight.

Lawsuit alleges warrantless raids and repeated wrongful detention

The 89-page complaint, prepared by lawyers for the Institute for Justice, lays out an account of two workplace actions in Baldwin County that the filing says were emblematic of a broader set of enforcement practices. According to the document, agents entered non-public areas of private construction sites without warrants or consent, detained workers preemptively on the assumption they were undocumented, and kept some individuals in custody even after they produced identification demonstrating citizenship or lawful presence. The complaint argues those policies violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and exceed the statutory authority of immigration officers.

The filing names as defendants a range of federal officials and agencies, including specific Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervisors operating in the New Orleans sector and the Gulf of America task force. It also includes individual officers in their official capacities and asks the court to certify a class of construction workers and other employees who have been subject to similar raids in the district. The complaint documents at least 15 raids in Baldwin County alone since January 2025, including operations at subdivisions developed by major homebuilders.

Venegas recounts two episodes: in May, video captured him being forced to the ground while asserting his citizenship; less than a month later he says he was similarly detained while working on another site. “It feels like there is nothing I can do to stop immigration agents from arresting me whenever they want,” Venegas said in a statement released by his attorneys. “I just want to work in peace.” His lawyers say the pattern of detentions — targeting people who “look Latino” or who work in certain industries — has real consequences for families and for the functioning of local labor markets.

Broader pattern, public reaction and political stakes

Legal advocates and local community groups say Venegas’s case is part of a national uptick in workplace enforcement actions that critics say too often sweep up U.S. citizens. Similar incidents — and related lawsuits — have been reported from California to other southern states, prompting civil-rights litigation and public protests. In Los Angeles, for example, a 79-year-old U.S. citizen injured during a raid recently filed a multimillion-dollar claim against federal authorities, and rights groups have accused agents of using excessive force or detaining people without proper cause. Those cases have fed a broader debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections.

In Alabama, the complaint aligns with reporting by local outlets that document repeated operations by a multiagency Gulf of America task force that has conducted sweeping construction-site raids this year. Advocates say those operations have created fear and instability in immigrant communities and among U.S.-born workers who are Latino or of Latino descent; business owners have also warned that disruptive enforcement actions can halt construction projects and complicate labor supply. The complaint frames those harms not only in constitutional terms but as economic and social injuries that warrant injunctive relief on a classwide basis.

Politically, the case lands at a touchpoint between a White House that has emphasized aggressive enforcement and local communities that demand civil-rights protections. Supporters of the current federal posture argue that stepped-up workplace enforcement is necessary to deter unlawful employment and human-trafficking networks; opponents counter that the methods used are often indiscriminate, violate basic legal safeguards, and target people based on appearance. The dispute complicates relations between federal agencies and state or local officials who must manage the fallout of large sweeps and their human consequences.

What the government says, and the legal path ahead

DHS’s early response — calling the lawsuit opportunistic — was echoed by agency spokespeople who defended operations as necessary components of immigration enforcement. But the complaint expressly alleges that agency policies authorize warrantless entries and indefinite detention without an objective factual basis for suspecting individuals are undocumented. If the court finds the policies unlawful, the remedies could include an injunction barring certain tactics, changes to interagency task-force protocols, and damages for victims who were wrongfully detained. The complaint also seeks declaratory relief that the practices violate federal law.

Civil-liberties lawyers say the case presents a relatively clear constitutional claim: the Fourth Amendment requires either a warrant, consent, or a genuine emergency before officers may enter nonpublic private property, and prolonged detention after a person produces valid identification lacks legal support unless independent suspicion emerges. The case could hinge on the government’s factual showing of how agents obtained and acted on information before entering private construction lots and on whether the task-force policies were narrower or broader than the complaint claims. The government can be expected to assert at least two defenses: that the operations were lawful exercises of immigration authority and that the agents acted on reasonable suspicion in each instance.

Legal observers also noted the practical hurdles for plaintiffs seeking class certification in cases that involve multiple sites and discrete encounters: courts will examine whether the alleged policies produced common injuries and whether the named plaintiff’s experiences are typical of the proposed class. But the complaint’s breadth — its detailed catalog of raids, the named agency officials, and the photographs and video evidence appended to the filing — signals a strategy to show systemic practice rather than isolated mistakes.

For communities in Baldwin County, the case raises immediate questions about daily life and labor. Construction firms that rely on a mobile, largely Latino workforce say the raids have interrupted projects and created safety concerns on private job sites. Workers, both citizens and noncitizens, describe a new normal in which going to a jobsite carries the risk of detention — a condition the lawsuit argues is fundamentally at odds with constitutional protections for private property and for free movement.

As the litigation unfolds, it will test not only the legality of the task-force tactics but the federal government’s approach to workforce enforcement in a politically charged environment. For Venegas and others named in the complaint, the immediate goal is narrower: an end to what his lawyers say are unlawful practices that let agents detain people who present evidence of lawful status and to win damages for harms already suffered. For policymakers and judges, the case will raise larger questions about how immigration enforcement is carried out on private property and who bears the burden when constitutional rights collide with enforcement priorities.

— Reporting by Nick Ravenshade. Sources: Institute for Justice complaint (Leonardo Garcia Venegas v. United States, filed Sept. 30, 2025); Associated Press; PBS NewsHour; ABC News; CalMatters; Reuters and regional reporting on workplace raids.

Photo: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Public Domain, via Flickr