Ninth Circuit Lifts Judge Thurston's Border Patrol Stop-and-Arrest Injunction and Remands for a Standing Determination, Leaving the Appeal Pending (United Farm Workers v. Noem)

On August 24, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Schroeder, Christen and Forrest issued a four-page order in appeal No. 25-4047 that lifted the preliminary injunction Judge Jennifer Thurston entered on April 29, 2025 in cascade-timeline:2025-04-29–judge-thurston-injunction-border-patrol-kern-county-racial-profiling. It did not reverse on the merits and did not vacate the findings. The panel held that the district court “considered only Plaintiffs’ allegations of past harm,” which under City of Los Angeles v. Lyons does not by itself establish standing for prospective injunctive relief, and that standing cannot be waived even though Defendants had not argued it below. It remanded “for the limited purpose of determining in the first instance whether Plaintiffs have standing to seek prospective relief,” retained jurisdiction over the appeal and stayed appellate proceedings. It asked the parties to notify it within five days of a district ruling and to file a status report if there is none within 120 days of the order. The order says nothing prevents the district court from entertaining additional requests for relief if new harm arises during the remand.

What the injunction had required (per the district court’s own summary): Border Patrol could not make detentive stops in the Eastern District of California without pre-stop reasonable suspicion that the person is a removable noncitizen, nor warrantless arrests without pre-arrest probable cause that the person is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. It also required documentation of articulable facts for every immigration-related stop, compliance with DHS’s Broadcast Statement of Policy, guidance on reasonable suspicion, and proof of agent training. The injunction bound Border Patrol, not ICE. The district court had granted in part a motion to enforce it over a Sacramento Home Depot action (Doc. 176, dated March 11, 2026 and docket-stamped 04/01/26); the Ninth Circuit’s order does not mention that ruling.

After the order Judge Thurston directed briefing on standing (Doc. 208, Sept. 14) and allowed Defendants to submit supplemental evidence; plaintiffs’ supplemental brief was due Sept. 17, Defendants’ opposition is due Oct. 1 and plaintiffs’ reply Oct. 15. In the joint status report, Plaintiffs argued that standing should be decided on the established preliminary injunction record rather than in a new preliminary injunction proceeding. The law the injunction enforced remains in force whether or not an order backs it.