(OREGON, UNITED STATES) Two Oregon organizations filed a federal lawsuit on October 17, 2025, accusing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of systematically preventing detained immigrants from meeting with lawyers. The case, lodged in federal court, alleges ICE blocked access to attorneys during a period of heightened arrests across Oregon, raising urgent questions about due process, free speech, and the right to legal counsel access for people held in immigration custody.
PCUN (Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste), Oregon’s largest Latino farmworker union based in Woodburn, and the CLEAR Clinic, a Portland nonprofit that provides free immigration defense, brought the case. They are represented by Innovation Law Lab, a Portland legal nonprofit. The complaint names the Department of Homeland Security, ICE, the ICE Seattle field office, and several officials: Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, ICE Seattle Field Office Director Cammilla Wamsley, and Acting CBP Commissioner Pete Flores.
The 35-page complaint details at least 20 instances since June 2025 where detainees were either denied meetings with their attorneys or moved out of Oregon without being allowed to consult a lawyer. In several examples, attorneys say they arrived at facilities with signed representation forms but were kept waiting in lobbies while clients were taken through back exits and transferred, including to the Northwest ICE Processing Center in Tacoma, Washington.
One attorney described asking for access while ICE moved her client out a rear door and onto transport to another state.
Allegations of Systematic Obstruction
Innovation Law Lab Legal Director Jordan Cunnings said lawyers face routine barriers at temporary holding sites in Portland’s McAdam location and in Eugene, preventing thorough legal consultations.
The plaintiffs argue these practices violate multiple legal protections, including the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the First Amendment right to hire, consult, and communicate with an attorney. They also cite the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act and ICE’s own detention standards.
For reference, ICE’s stated standards for attorney communication and visitation—covering both in-person and phone contact—are posted on the agency’s website: ICE Detention Standards.
The lawsuit contends that when ICE blocks or delays legal visits—or moves people out of Oregon before counsel can speak with them—it:
- Undermines core rights and legal process
- Makes it nearly impossible to gather evidence or file time-sensitive requests
- Prevents preparation for credible fear or bond hearings
The complaint stresses that people in civil immigration custody are not serving criminal sentences and depend on attorneys to request release, seek asylum, or challenge removal. Without timely legal counsel, many detainees may lose the chance to present key facts to a judge.
“Blocking access to counsel undermines due process and makes it practically impossible for detainees to exercise their rights,” the complaint asserts.
Escalated Enforcement Context and Responses
The complaint comes amid stepped-up immigration enforcement across Oregon. Federal authorities began targeted operations throughout the Willamette Valley on October 15, 2025.
According to the filing, after taking office in January 2025, the Trump administration directed ICE field offices to meet a reported quota of 75 arrests per day. The plaintiffs also point to the rollback of previous guidance that limited immigration actions at sensitive locations like schools.
Examples cited in the complaint:
– In July, agents detained a father while he dropped his child at a Beaverton preschool.
– On October 14, 2025, officers posted outside a Wilsonville middle school were asked to leave by school staff.
PCUN Executive Director Reyna Lopez said: “Masked agents are snatching people from our communities and denying Oregonians their fundamental rights. We are suing today because our members are getting arrested and swept up by masked ICE agents in unmarked vehicles.”
Cunnings added: “I think just like many immigration policies under the Trump administration, it’s now being amped up to sort of the maximum degree of cruelty and unlawfulness.” The plaintiffs argue that these tactics chill community trust and make immigrants afraid to seek help, even when they have legal claims.
Government officials disputed the accusations. DHS Assistant Secretary Trisha McLofflin responded: “No lawbreakers in the history of human civilization have been treated better than illegal aliens in the United States. All detainees are provided ample opportunity to communicate with their attorneys and family members.”
Her statement suggests the government views current procedures as compliant with policy and law and rejects claims that ICE blocked access.
Emergency Relief Sought
The lawsuit seeks an emergency order directing ICE to change course immediately. The requested relief asks a federal judge to:
- Stop transferring detainees out of state before they have a chance to speak with a lawyer
- Guarantee confidential attorney access at federal facilities in Oregon
- Halt ongoing conduct the plaintiffs characterize as unlawful and violative of constitutional protections
In practice, the order would require ICE to:
- Pause quick transfers that prevent attorney contact
- Set up reliable systems for meetings (in person, by phone, or via secure video)
- Confirm attorney-of-record contacts before moving a person out of state
The plaintiffs stress urgency because some immigration legal deadlines are measured in days; missing them can result in removal.
Practical and Human Impacts
For families, the consequences are immediate and personal:
- When parents are moved out of Oregon without notice, children, spouses, and employers may not know where they are or how to reach them.
- People in detention can lose phones and documents during transfers.
- Without a lawyer, detainees may not know how to request a bond hearing, present ties to the community, or prepare evidence that could alter their immigration case outcome.
ICE policy documents state detainees must have a reasonable chance to contact legal counsel, including access to telephones and confidential meeting rooms. The plaintiffs insist those rules are being ignored on the ground.
If the court grants the emergency order, Oregon facilities would likely need to:
- Adjust intake and transfer routines
- Schedule legal visits faster
- Confirm attorney-of-record contacts before transfers
What to Watch Next
As the case proceeds, judges will consider:
- Sworn declarations from attorneys
- Logs from detention sites
- Transfer records showing timing and movement of detainees
According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, readers follow cases like this to track how courts enforce attorney access in detention and what rulings mean for local communities.
The next steps hinge on how quickly the court hears the emergency request and whether federal officials propose interim fixes. For now:
- Plaintiffs argue ICE blocking access to attorneys erases basic rights for people who need legal help most.
- Federal officials counter that detainees already have ample ways to call and meet lawyers.
The court will decide which account holds up under the law.
This Article in a Nutshell
On October 17, 2025, PCUN and the CLEAR Clinic filed a federal lawsuit alleging that ICE systematically obstructed detained immigrants’ access to attorneys in Oregon. The 35-page complaint documents at least 20 incidents since June 2025 in which detainees were denied meetings or transferred out of state before counsel could consult them, sometimes after attorneys arrived with signed representation forms. Plaintiffs argue these actions violate the Fifth and First Amendments, the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, and ICE detention standards. They name DHS, ICE, the Seattle field office, and senior officials as defendants. The lawsuit seeks an emergency order halting out-of-state transfers before counsel contact, guaranteeing confidential attorney access, and reforming transfer and visitation procedures. The filing follows intensified enforcement operations starting October 15, 2025, and raises questions about due process, community trust, and the practical ability of detainees to pursue asylum, bond, or removal defenses. Government officials deny the allegations, saying detainees have ample opportunities to communicate with lawyers. The court will weigh attorney declarations, detention logs, and transfer records to determine whether interim relief is warranted.
