Jared
LightNews LightNews
banner
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Jared
@jaredmcclain.bsky.social
1.6K followers 1K following 700 posts
Civil Rights Lawyer

“Crusading against government officials and the immunity doctrines that protect them." -St. Tammany Parrish Sheriff's Office

Contractually obligated to say that my opinions are my own
Posts Replies Media Videos
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Come work with me and learn how to sue over the stories that make you mad online.

ij.org/careers/
Applications now open: Dave Kennedy Fellowships for Summer 2026
November 26, 2025 at 6:12 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
We've been going after mass surveillance (like ALPRs) and pretextual traffic stops for years.

This article highlights @ij.org client Alek Schott's case to show how the two issues have converged.

It's time to take away the government's toys.
Federal agents observed that Schott had made an overnight trip from Houston to Carrizo Springs, Texas, and back, court records show. They knew he stayed overnight in a hotel about 80 miles (129 kilometers) from the U.S.-Mexico border. They knew that in the morning Schott met a female colleague there before they drove together to a business meeting. At Border Patrol’s request, Schott was pulled over by Bexar County sheriff’s deputies. The deputies held Schott by the side of the road for more than an hour, searched his car and found nothing. “The beautiful thing about the Texas Traffic Code is there’s thousands of things you can stop a vehicle for,” said Joel Babb, the sheriff’s deputy who stopped Schott’s car, in a deposition in a lawsuit Schott filed alleging violations of his constitutional rights.
November 20, 2025 at 7:07 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
I'm in WaPo today explaining why the administration's profiling of people for immigration stops based on their ethnicity and occupation is unconstitutional:

wapo.st/43W3haf
Title shot of WaPo op-ed, entitled, "He's a citizen with a Real ID. ICE detained him anyway. Twice." with a picture of Leonardo Garcia Venegas standing by his work truck in Baldwin County, Alabama. This constitutional requirement prevents stops based on general suspicion about people who look a certain way, live in a certain area or work for a certain company. For instance, the Supreme Court has said that someone’s presence in a high-crime area is not sufficient to justify even a brief investigatory stop. Even hanging out in a bar that’s being searched for drugs pursuant to a warrant is not enough. Officers must have evidence that a specific individual broke the law. When officers detain groups of people based on their occupation, their location, or “how they look,” as U.S. Customs and Border Protection official Gregory Bovino described the administration’s strategy in Chicago, the stop will rarely — if ever — be justified. That’s especially true when people are working at private businesses subject to federal employee-verification requirements.
November 10, 2025 at 2:16 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
From a different witness's statement in our case:
Paragraph # 31 of witness statement: An agent wearing an FBI-marked vest told my wife that the agents receive a monetary bonus for each undocumented worker they catch, and that if she pointed out which of the handcuffed workers were undocumented, she would get a $200 cut of that bonus per person.
October 29, 2025 at 6:59 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
A witness in our case had ICE reject all her documents after using facial rec on her.

For her, tho, it seemed like nothing could make them accept that she has a right to be here.

Either way, a gov policy of not trusting gov-issued docs is going to violate lots of people's rights.
I told the officers nearest to me that I had all my paperwork, including my U.S. Employment Authorization Card, my Social Security Card, my Florida-issued REAL ID, and my Mexican Passport. 14. The officers walked me to my car and retrieved my paperwork. 15. The officers reviewed my paperwork and used what I believe was facial recognition to confirm my identity. 16. At first, they seemed satisfied, but another officer (who appeared to be a supervisor) said that they could not trust my paperwork because “the Biden Administration made a lot of mistakes.” After about 20 minutes in zip-ties, the officers decided that they would not let me go, and they replaced my zip-ties with handcuffs and shackles around my legs. 18. I was in shackles for several hours before the officers finally told me that they were “giving me a second chance” and let me go. Case 1:25-cv-00397-JB-C Doc# 30-5 Filed 10/27/25 Page 3 of 10 PageID# 361 25-00397-C 30-5 25 Page4of10 PagelD# 17.
October 29, 2025 at 5:18 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Even a younger Sam Alito thought REAL IDs should be presumptive proof of lawful status.
arrested has committed an offense against the United States or is an alien illegally in the United States." 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c) (2) (i) -(ii).4 The Continued Detention Policy authorizes the very type of seizures that Alcocer forbids—but at scale. Many of these seizures turn into arrests that exceed the officers' power under 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(c)(2)(i)-(ii). Under the policy, immigration officers can detain workers—initially seized on the premise that they are undocumented-even after workers show proof of citizenship or lawful presence. Supra pp 11-12. It happened to Leo twice. Both times, officers had his driver's license in hand within minutes. Supra pp. 5-6. Alabama issues licenses only to citizens or those who are lawfully present, Ala. Code § 31- 13-29(c) (1), (g), specifically "to discourage illegal immigration within the state and maximize enforcement of federal immigration laws through cooperation with federal authorities." United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1276 (11th Cir. 2012). Thus, Leo was "entitled to the presumption that he ….. [was] lawfully present." Ala. Code § 31-13- 3(11). Leo's license also has a star in the corner, which he could obtain only with the documents DHS certifies are compliant with the federal REAL ID Act. 6 C.F.R. § 37.71.5 Under that Act, a REAL ID "suffice[s] to establish lawful presence." Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 449 n.1 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring in part).
October 28, 2025 at 6:46 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
We just filed our PI brief in this one detailing how these stops are illegal, in part, because DHS won’t accept that REAL IDs are real.

ICE rejected one woman’s ID and put her in shackles because “the Biden Administration made a lot of mistakes.”

ij.org/press-releas...
There are plenty of recent examples. In Chicago, a Latina U.S. citizen and service worker was detained for an hour because immigration officers "questioned the validity of her passport and told her she 'doesn't look like' her family name, Greeley." Id. { 27. In Los Angeles, a citizen with a REAL ID was held for 20 minutes because he couldn't remember the name of his birth hospital. Id. { 28. In Idaho, officers raided a business, collected every Latino's papers, put them in a bag, and tied the bag around their necks before lining them up for further investigation. Id. { 23. In D.C., a Latino construction worker with Temporary Protected Status told officers that he had his papers and they replied, "No you don't. You are illegal. Shut up, bitch! You're illegal!" Id. $ 33. And just this month in Escambia County, Florida, officers raided a private worksite and refused to accept a Latina landscaper's U.S. Employment Authorization Card, Social Security Card, and Florida REAL ID because "the Biden Administration made a lot of mistakes." Doe Decl. § 16. Immigration officers in Alabama treat REAL IDs with similar disregard. Leo has had five officers, during two separate raids that were three weeks and 20 miles apart, tell him that they could not trust that his REAL ID was real. Leo Decl. "* 51, 86.
October 28, 2025 at 6:17 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
We just filed a motion to enjoin these suspicionless stops.

In it, we explain how they’re not happening the way Justice Kavanaugh described.
Immigration officers often have no idea who is on the construction sites they raid. Leo Decl. < 99. Yet DHS policy allows them to preemptively detain all workers who fit the DHS profile without any prior knowledge of their identity, without asking any questions, and without observing any suspicious conduct by the individual workers they seize. Id.; see also, e.g., Windham Decl. $ 33 (officers arrested construction worker in D.C., about whom they had no prior knowledge and whom they did not question, despite his valid Temporary Protected Status), $ 34 (officers arrested construction business owner in D.C., about whom they had no prior knowledge and whom they did not question, despite his Employment Authorization, Social Security Number, and open asylum application). Armed with this policy, officers invade construction sites and round up all Latino workers, often placing them in handcuffs or zip-ties immediately. (citing reports of recent business raid during which children and citizens were zip-tied). Non-Latino workers are left alone. These are not Terry stops-they are not brief and there is no inquiry. Leo was held for about 90 minutes across two stops at which officers did not ask questions about Leo's status and nothing he said could have set him free. Leo Decl. 19 56, 96. Other citizens and lawful residents have been detained for hours or days. One explanation for why these raids do not function like Terry stops is that DHS believes it can arrest people based on the "reasonable suspicion" it thinks attaches to someone's ethnicity and occupation. As Chief Agent Bovino recently explained: "We need reasonable suspicion to make an immigration arrest. You notice I did not say probable cause, nor did I say I need a warrant." Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin gave a similar comment in response to this lawsuit: "DHS law enforcement uses 'reasonable suspicion' to make arrests."
October 28, 2025 at 6:03 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
We just filed our motion for preliminary injunction asking the court to enjoin three of the government's immigration-enforcement policies:

ij.org/press-releas...
Warrantless Entry Policy. DHS has authorized immigration officers to search all construction sites without consent or a warrant—even private areas that are posted with No Trespassing signs, enclosed with fences, or enclosed with structures. Preemptive Detention Policy. DHS also authorizes immigration officers, once they enter a worksite, to immediately—and without asking questions—detain everybody who fits the agency’s general demographic profile for undocumented workers in that industry. Continued Detention Policy. Finally, whether an initial detention is lawful or not, DHS authorizes the continued detention of all people who fit DHS’s profile even after a detainee produces credible evidence of citizenship or lawful presence, like a REAL ID.
October 28, 2025 at 5:55 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
This guy did an interview with his back to camera like he was in witness protection to say the raids are bad actually

www.reuters.com/world/us/thi...
Clip of interview by construction worker explaining how ICE raids were scaring Latino workers from showing up to work and being profiled despite their legal status
October 26, 2025 at 12:39 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Really nice piece putting Kavanaugh’s Perdomo opinion into recent and historical context.
Lawyers for Garcia Venegas said he was handcuffed and held for over an hour after agents dismissed the driver's license in his pocket issued only to legal residents as a fake. A few weeks later, he was detained again for about 30 minutes at another construction site 20 miles away. There's a shorthand circulating on the left for this kind of encounter: "Kavanaugh Stops." It's a reference to conservative Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote in a case last month that encounters with immigration agents for legal residents are "typically brief" and affected individuals "promptly go free." Kavanaugh's assessment is at odds with Garcia Venegas' experience,
October 22, 2025 at 12:16 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
☹️
Cite as: 607 U. S. _ (2025) 1 Statement of GORSUCH, J. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CORRINE MORGAN THOMAS, ET AL. v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1180. Decided October 14, 2025 The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Statement of JUSTICE GORSUCH respecting the denial of certiorari. In Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Bombolis, 241 U. S. 211, 217 (1916), this Court held that the Seventh Amendment's civil jury trial right is not enforceable against the States. Petitioners ask us to reconsider that decision. But a number of "vehicle" problems make it unlikely that we could do so in this case. See Brief in Opposition 21-44. Ac-cordingly, I agree with the Court's decision to deny review. At the same time, I do not doubt that Bombolis warrants a second look. THOMAS v. HUMBOLDT COUNTY Statement of GORSUCH, J. countable, and ensuring a fair hearing for those who come before our courts. Bombolis may survive today, but this Court should confront its Seventh Amendment holding soon. A right "of such importance," one that "occupies so firm a place in our history,'" deserves no less. Jarkesy, 603 U.S., at 121 (quot-ing Dimick v. Schiedt, 293 U. S. 474, 486 (1935)).
October 14, 2025 at 1:45 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
When we sued to stop the ICE raids in Alabama, DHS said it can make immigration arrests based on reasonable suspicion.

We figured McLaughlin just misspoke.

But here’s the Chief Border Agent clarifying that they don’t think they need probable cause.

www.cnn.com/us/live-news...
10:014 • Messages •el 5Gw • Subscribe enforcement crackdown in Chicago denied that racial profiling factors into arrests made by federal officers. "We need reasonable suspicion to make an immigration arrest," Gregory Bovino said. "You notice I did not say probable cause, nor did I say I need a warrant. We need reasonable suspicion of illegal alienage that's well-grounded within the United States immigration law." The Supreme Court in a 1 2 Newer Posts Septembe war weared the way for a person's ethnicity to be at least a partial factor cnn.com
October 8, 2025 at 2:34 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
We sued because ICE arrested Leo twice for being brown on a construction site and refused to believe his REAL ID was real.

DHS responded today by calling our case "garbage," "race-baiting" that will "directly contribute" to more assaults of ICE officers.

bit.ly/3KvED9R
“Under the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution, DHS law enforcement uses ‘reasonable suspicion’ to make arrests,” There are no ‘indiscriminate stops’ being made. The (U.S.) Supreme Court recently vindicated us on this question. DHS enforces federal immigration law without fear, favor, or prejudice.” McLaughlin went on to say that the lawsuit is only adding fuel to violent strikes against ICE agents in respone to ramped up immigration enforcement, such as a sniper attack on the ICE Dallas Field Office on Sept. 24. “This type of garbage is directly contributing to ICE officers facing a 1000% increase in assaults against them,” McLaughlin said. “... Race-baiting opportunism in the form of a baseless lawsuit is no better than when it comes from politicians or activists.”
October 2, 2025 at 12:12 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
This, from our QI win yesterday.

Idk but maybe county jails modeled after gitmo with guards pumping freezing air and death metal music shouldn’t be “more-or-less typical.”
Portion of opinion in Box v. Broward County describing the conditions in jail: Plaintiff was detained in jail through Christmas Day. She alleges that she experienced what is more-or-less typical of any person arrested and detained in jail, including body cavity searches, exposure to violence and unceasing loud noises that made sleep impossible, interactions with condescending and uncaring guards (who, male and female, also watched her shower), enduring unbearably cold temperatures, and so on. Id. 11 135-46. After her arraignment on Christmas Day, BSO transferred Plaintiff to Paul Rein Detention Center, where the conditions were similar to those at the first detention center except that the guards also allegedly played death-metal music throughout the cells at all hours. Id. 11 148, 152-54, 157-58
September 4, 2025 at 3:24 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
The court also denied the motion to dismiss our municipal-liability claim against the Sheriff’s Office.

Two “remarkably similar” incidents of Broward County Sheriffs locking the wrong person in jail despite obvious difference was enough to show an unconstitutional policy.
These two examples are sufficient to get Plaintiff over the hurdle of showing prior, similar incidents. The inference that the Sheriff had notice of the improper police conduct (here, arresting the wrong person despite glaring red flags indicating a case of mistaken identity) and failed to take remedial action is bolstered by the allegation that BSO's Internal Affairs Division reviewed Plaintiffs incident and confirmed that the Deputies followed all BSO protocols and did not violate any BSO policies.
September 4, 2025 at 12:38 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Victory!

We beat qualified immunity in our FL Mistaken Identity case.

The court held it was clearly established that officers violate 4A when they execute a warrant on the wrong person when there are observable differences from the suspect’s description and time to verify their identity.
Case 0:24-cv-61734-MD Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/03/2025 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 24-61734-CIV-DAMIAN/Valle JENNIFER HEATH BOX, Plaintift, BROWARD COUNTY SHERIFF GREGORY TONY, et al., Defendants. ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION TO DISMISS [ECE NO. 31] THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendants, Broward County Sheriff Gregory Tony ("the Sheriff"), Deputy Peter Peraza, Deputy Monica Jean, Deputy Jasmine Hines, and Deputy Anthony Thorpe (collectively, "the Deputies," and with the Sheriff, "Defendants"), Joint Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 31 (the "Motion")], filed February 10, 2025. THE COURT has reviewed the Motion and the Response [ECF No. 43] thereto (no Reply was filed), the pertinent portions of the record, and the applicable law and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, this Court finds that the Motion is due to be granted in part. I. BACKGROUND' As alleged in the Amended Complaint, on Christmas Eve 2022, Plaintiff, Jennifer Heath Box ("Plaintiff"), was disembarking at Port Everglades following a cruise with her conte then an the at nos ae o Famit, St aer re i ne 45 ป. 69, 73 (1984). had a copy of the fugitive's purported driver's license information, which, due to an administrative error improperly linking the plaintiff's driver's license to the warrant, made it appear that the plaintiff's driver's license information matched the fugitive's. Id. When the plaintiff told the officer that he was not on probation and that the warrant could not be for him, the officer contacted the sheriff's office and realized that the photograph on the warrant did not match the one on the driver's license. Id. at 24. However, the officer refused to use a fingerprint scanner or any other rapid verification program to determine if the plaintiff was the fugitive and instead told the plaintiff that "it would get sorted out at the jail." Id. (quotation in original). The court held that under the totality of the circumstances, the officer was not entitled to dismissal based on a reasonable mistake. Id. Here, taking the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint as true and viewing them in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Deputies have not shown their mistake was reasonable. Unlike the circumstances in the Eleventh Circuit's Rodriguez decision, the totality of the circumstances presented here, in which there were numerous discrepancies between the Suspect's information and the Plaintiff's, and where the officers were not in exigent circumstances when they made the arrest but, instead, had plenty of time to figure out their mistake, does not lead to the conclusion that the mistake was reasonable such that dismissal of the Fourth Amendment claim would be appropriate at this time. The facts of this case are more similar to those presented in Oliveria and Gomez, where motions to dismiss were denied because there were observable differences between the individual and the person described in the warrant and there was plenty of time for officers to verify the identity of the person being arrested but the officers ignored red flags and arrested the person anyways
September 4, 2025 at 12:32 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Saw this story in Bolts about NOLA voting to allow cops to use cameras with facial-recognition technology.

Sent the City Council a letter to let them know it's unconstitutional and, historically, we really like to sue over this sort of thing.

ij.org/press-releas...
Dear Councilmembers: The Institute for Justice is writing to you concerning the proposed ordinance that would allow police to use cameras with facial recognition to investigate crimes. The proposed law is unconstitutional. IJ recommends that the City Council reject the amendment and, instead, ensure that police cannot use intrusive technology to track people’s public movement. The Institute for Justice The Institute for Justice is a national nonprofit law firm that has defended constitutional rights in court for decades. Four years ago, IJ launched its Project on the Fourth Amendment to bolster all Americans’ right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. And just last week, IJ launched a new Plate Privacy Project to combat the abuses of automated license-plate readers (“ALRPs”) as a means of surveillance.1 Over the years, IJ has litigated search-and-seizure cases nationwide, including challenges to rental inspection ordinances in Iowa and Pennsylvania, as well as major class actions against the FBI, DEA, and other federal agencies. In addition to creating binding judicial precedent, these cases have led to consent decrees, such as one prohibiting New York City from conditioning a business’s right to operate on its agreement to provide the NYPD with access to security footage, ALPRs at issue in Schmidt. The proposed amendment would enable NOPD to secretly monitor and catalog the location of hundreds of thousands of people whenever they move through New Orleans. Whether by contracting with Project NOLA or by installing the city’s own camera network to track people’s faces throughout the city, the proposed amendment would run afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of privacy. Conclusion IJ urges the City Council to reject the proposed ordinance and reaffirm New Orleans’s commitment to protecting its residents and its visitors from intrusive surveillance technology like a network of facial-recognition cameras. Mass surveillance programs threaten people’s basic constitutional rights and may expose the City to litigation. Should the City Council have questions or need guidance, IJ is willing to help. Thank you, _______________________ Jared McClain Attorney INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE 901 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900 Arlington, VA 22203 (703) 682-9320 jmcclain@ij.org
August 19, 2025 at 9:11 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
New case: @ij.org is representing George Retes, an army vet who ICE disappeared during the raid on a cannabis farm.

They held George for three days without charges. He never got a phone call, let alone access to an attorney.

He missed his daughter's third birthday.

t.co/TtGX8jKXF6
Photo of George in army fatigues sitting on the back of an army vehicle.
August 18, 2025 at 8:57 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Link to the opinion, pic of the victor:

media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub...
Picture of Eric Andre
August 18, 2025 at 5:45 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Eric Andre & Clayton English won their appeal in the Eleventh Circuit

They allege the drug interdiction program at ATL airport, which stops (mostly Black) travelers trying to board their planes, violates the Fourth Amendment

Cops can't hold your ticket & block jet bridge w/o reasonable suspicion
Cover page of Eleventh Circuit's decision in Andre v. Clayton County, No. 23-13253 The Court held: We reach the same conclusion with respect to André. Like English, André plausibly alleged the presence of the first two Berry factors. He alleged that individual defendants intercepted him on the jet bridge, blocking his path to continue onto his plane. Then, individual defendants “continued to ask Mr. André questions . . . about his travel plans and his reason for flying” while they held onto “his ticket and government ID.” As discussed, we have emphasized that the presence of the first two Berry factors are important in f inding that a seizure occurred.
August 18, 2025 at 5:43 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
It’s minor compared to the many other illegal things with these warrantless immigration arrests, but the arresting officers have to identify themselves as immigration officers and state the reason for the arrest.
8 CFR 287.8(c) (iii) At the time of the arrest, the designated immigration officer shall, as soon as it is practical and safe to do so: (A) Identify himself or herself as an immigration officer who is authorized to execute an arrest; and (B) State that the person is under arrest and the reason for the arrest.
August 18, 2025 at 12:46 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
"Dangerous histories were observed"

Always tough to tell when police statements are just poor attempts to sound sophisticated and when they're intentionally obscuring the truth.

Especially since it's often both.
Statement on Atmore Police Department's Facebook page saying, "Several individuals (6) were taken into custody. Dangerous criminal histories ... were observed during the arrests."
August 16, 2025 at 10:39 PM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
And their Facebook pages are full of pics showing only the arrestees while the Feds hide themselves
FBI Mobile’s Facebook posts showing an immigrant in handcuffs facing the camera with various federal officers with their backs to the camera
August 16, 2025 at 1:49 AM
jaredmcclain.bsky.social
Yes, no, no. There were about 15 MPD & 15 ICE and only ever 2-4 cars stopped at a time. Typically each stop was 1-2 MPD and 1 ICE per car w/ 2-3 MPD directing traffic while everyone else stood around.

Seemed like only 2 ICE checked drivers’ status while the rest waited for arrests
Silver car driving through checkpoint while black tesla is stopped in center land. About 6 MPD and 4 ICE mulling around in the middle of the road. MPD officers either side of a white BMW suv while another directs traffic and an ICE officer checks the driver’s immigration status. Three ICE officers standing in the middle of 14th while and MPD officer writes a ticket to a driver in a red hatchback
August 14, 2025 at 1:51 PM