(Image Credit: IMAGN) The Kentucky Sentate gavel rests on the wooden sound block in the Kentucky Senate chambers before the first day of Concurrence began at the state Capitol in Frankfort, Ky. March 13, 2025.
San Diego, California – As federal immigration enforcement intensifies across the country, a lawsuit filed in San Diego may soon test the legality and transparency of the government’s tactics. The case, brought by a Moroccan asylum seeker identified in court documents only as A.M., challenges the arrest and detention of immigrants who appear voluntarily for scheduled court hearings.
A.M., a human rights advocate who says he fled torture in Morocco, was detained on June 3 outside a federal courtroom in downtown San Diego after learning his case had been dismissed. According to his sworn declaration, several agents—some masked—confronted him, placed him in handcuffs, and took him into custody without explanation. He was later transferred to the Otay Mesa Detention Center and placed into expedited removal proceedings, a fast-track deportation process typically reserved for recent arrivals or individuals without legal status.
In his lawsuit, A.M. describes being denied access to his attorney, interrogated while experiencing a diabetic medical emergency, and pressured to forfeit his legal rights. “I said I needed to return in a box instead of being sent to the Moroccan occupations who would imprison, injure, torture, and beat me to death,” he wrote.
The suit names multiple officials, including the warden of the Otay Mesa facility, the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Secretary of Homeland Security. It seeks to challenge what A.M.’s legal team describes as a pattern of targeting vulnerable individuals who comply with immigration court procedures, only to be detained under opaque circumstances.
During a hearing on Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Jinsook Ohta declined to grant A.M.’s request for a preliminary injunction, noting that he had already been released from detention and removed from expedited removal proceedings. However, Ohta expressed concern over the government’s lack of transparency in making these arrests. She pressed federal attorneys for details on how decisions are made, what data is used, and whether internal guidelines govern such operations.
Although ICE did not respond to a request for comment and federal attorneys declined interviews, the case may still serve as a window into broader enforcement strategies. A.M.’s attorney, Emily Howe, acknowledged the legal challenges ahead, calling the effort “one attorney up against five attorneys in the U.S. government.”
The case resumes on September 4. In the meantime, Howe has reached out to civil rights organizations and class action firms, hoping to build a broader legal coalition to address what she believes are unconstitutional practices.
