- An Alabama federal judge allowed Leo Garcia Venegas’s lawsuit to move forward after rejecting dismissal before discovery.
- Venegas says ICE detained him three times, including a May 2, 2026 stop that ended after officers confirmed his identity.
- The case now enters discovery, where lawyers may seek DHS records and testimony about the detentions.
A federal judge in Alabama has allowed Leo Garcia Venegas’s lawsuit over three alleged ICE detentions to proceed, rejecting the government’s effort to end the case before discovery. Chief U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Beaverstock issued the ruling on September 3, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, Mobile Division.
Venegas, a U.S. citizen and construction worker, says immigration officers detained him three times during enforcement operations in Alabama. He alleges the stops violated the Fourth Amendment because officers lacked adequate grounds to seize him.
Free toolI-94 Expiration Calculator Online
The lawsuit now moves into discovery. That phase could allow his lawyers to request Department of Homeland Security records and question officials about how agents identified him.
The government had asked the court to dismiss the case. Beaverstock denied that motion, preserving Venegas’s claims for further litigation.
Venegas’s lawyers say he showed an Alabama REAL ID identifying him as a U.S. citizen during each encounter. The first detention occurred during a construction-site raid in May 2025, followed by another detention at a different site less than a month later.
Jared McClain, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice, which represents Venegas, called the ruling “an important first step.”
The third encounter allegedly took place on May 2, 2026. Venegas says agents followed him home, pulled him from his vehicle, tackled him, handcuffed him and shackled him. They released him after confirming his identity.
The ruling opens the door to records and testimony
Venegas alleges that DHS policies directed officers to enter private construction sites without warrants and detain workers without individualized suspicion. His complaint presents the repeated stops as part of a broader challenge to immigration enforcement involving people who are mistakenly treated as unlawfully present.
Discovery may test those allegations. His attorneys can seek records concerning the encounters and ask officials about the practices that led to the detentions.
The ruling does not decide whether the government violated Venegas’s rights. It only allows the claims to continue past the initial dismissal stage.
That distinction will shape the next phase. Venegas must still prove the facts underlying his claims, while the government can continue contesting his account and legal theories.
DHS disputes the account of the final stop
DHS disputes what happened during the third encounter. The agency said Venegas was “NOT detained” and described the incident as routine vehicle enforcement involving a car officers believed was connected to someone unlawfully present.
That account conflicts with Venegas’s description of being removed from the vehicle, restrained and held until officers confirmed his identity. The court’s decision keeps the dispute alive for further proceedings.
DHS and ICE officials are the government defendants. The dismissal ruling coverage identifies the agencies but does not name an individual officer as a defendant in the reported proceedings.
The case remains at the early litigation stage
Winning the right to continue does not mean Venegas has won on the merits. The lawsuit keeps open his effort to obtain internal DHS evidence and establish a pattern of unconstitutional detention.
The case has drawn attention because it combines repeated immigration stops with a claim of U.S. citizenship and state-issued proof of identity. Its immediate legal effect is limited to allowing this lawsuit to proceed in federal court.
The Institute for Justice’s involvement gives Venegas representation as the case develops. The court may later consider disputes over evidence, additional motions and the government’s defenses.
The next filings could include an amended complaint, requests for injunctive relief or motions for summary judgment. Those filings could show whether the case remains focused on Venegas’s encounters or develops into a broader challenge to identification practices during worksite and roadside enforcement.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
