Immigration Groups File Class Action Against Department of Homeland Security in Northern District of Georgia

Four immigrants filed a proposed class action on November 12, 2026, challenging a practice they say allows immigration officers to detain people again without assessing whether their circumstances materially changed. The suit was filed in the Northern District of Georgia and covers the Atlanta ICE field office’s territory in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina.

The plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU chapters in those three states and Foley Hoag LLP, ask the court to block the alleged policy and restore the prior Changed Circumstances Policy. They also request a temporary halt while the case proceeds. The court has not reported a decision on class certification or preliminary relief.

The defendants named in the complaint are the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Secretary Markwayne Mullin, acting ICE Director David Venturella and acting Atlanta field office Director Kristen Sullivan.

The four plaintiffs live in Georgia and North Carolina

All four plaintiffs have pending applications for immigration relief. Each was detained again and later released after officials again found that the person was neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, according to the ACLU.

• Livinton Sosa Martinez, 41, a Nicaraguan man who lives in Greensboro, North Carolina.
• Raquel Mariona Ebora, 39, a Honduran woman who lives in Dunn, North Carolina.
• Alvaro Ibañez-Cardenas, 35, a Venezuelan man who lives in Athens, Georgia.
• Ambrosio Trujillo Zavaleta, 46, a Mexican man who lives in Savannah, Georgia.

The lawsuit does not specify when each person was re-detained. The plaintiffs seek to represent a broader group affected by the alleged practice across the three-state area served by the Atlanta field office.

The suit challenges a changed-circumstances practice

The ACLU says the Atlanta field office followed DHS’s Changed Circumstances Policy for more than four decades. Under that approach, officers could not re-detain someone previously released from immigration custody without an individualized determination that circumstances had materially changed.

The lawsuit alleges that DHS abandoned the practice around May 2025 and began allowing re-detention without that assessment. The ACLU estimates that hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been detained again in the field office’s area since then. It says some people were arrested without warning at routine ICE check-ins, separating families, interrupting businesses and cutting off access to medical care. Detention far from home can also make attorney contact, evidence gathering and immigration proceedings harder, the group says.

Corina Scott, a staff attorney with the ACLU of North Carolina, said the plaintiffs had followed their release conditions while their cases continued.

“Our clients have complied with the rules the government placed on them. They have shown up for court hearings, attended immigration check-in appointments, and adhered to the conditions of their release, all while building their lives around the understanding that doing so would allow them to remain free as their immigration cases proceeded.”

The complaint invokes administrative law and the Fourth Amendment

The plaintiffs challenge the alleged change under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that agencies must give a reasoned explanation when they depart from longstanding policy and consider the effects on people who relied on it. They also invoke the Fourth Amendment, which they say protects people from re-detention on the same immigration charges without an individualized finding of changed circumstances.

The complaint characterizes the alleged policy as arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional. Those are plaintiffs’ claims, not findings by the Georgia court. In separate California litigation, defendants denied implementing a re-detention policy in May 2025; that dispute is distinct from the Georgia complaint.

Other courts have considered separate re-detention disputes

In Garro Pinchi v. Mullin, Judge P. Casey Pitts addressed discovery disputes on October 5 and October 14, 2026. The court limited discovery to whether a re-detention policy exists, what it says, when it began and why DHS adopted it.

Other California cases involved individual requests for relief. On October 16, Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan recommended release for Joh Jaxeht Alfonso Diaz Duran. The recommendation said that, before re-detaining him, the government should give at least seven days’ notice and provide a bond hearing before an immigration judge, where it would have to prove he posed a flight risk or danger by clear and convincing evidence. Objections were due within three days after service.

In Howard v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ICE re-detained Ulis Ernesto Howard at a scheduled check-in on July 30, 2026. Howard had a 2014 removal order with deferral under the Convention Against Torture. A magistrate judge recommended his release and restrictions on re-detention.

On October 27, Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone recommended that Quintero Concepcion could not be re-detained absent materially changed circumstances and a neutral finding that removal was significantly likely in the foreseeable future. These recommendations and orders arose in separate cases.

Denver testimony concerned a different re-arrest practice

At a November 9 hearing, acting Denver ICE director Nathan Rasper testified that he had ordered staff to re-detain people immediately after their release from the Aurora detention facility, and that the practice had ended. Government attorneys counted at least 18 re-arrests between late October and early November, four more than they had initially disclosed.

Rasper said the arrests were intended to correct technical paperwork errors and that he did not mean to violate court orders. Assistant director Nichole Black testified that she received an order to re-detain certain people released through habeas proceedings, tracing it through deputy director George Valdez to Rasper. Judge Charlotte Sweeney had not decided whether to begin contempt proceedings.

Other Colorado judges changed individual release orders. On November 5, Judge Gordon P. Gallagher clarified that ICE could re-arrest one man only on a final removal order. On November 6, Judge Philip A. Brimmer barred re-detention of a petitioner without advance notice to the court. Those actions concern Colorado cases, not the Georgia lawsuit.

The plaintiffs seek a temporary halt as the case proceeds

The plaintiffs want the court to declare the alleged policy unlawful, stop its continued use and restore the prior policy. They have also asked for a temporary halt while the case proceeds. No application or individual filing step is identified for people who may be affected.

There is no Georgia ruling yet on class certification or preliminary relief. Watch the court for decisions on those requests.

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.