In 1982, a labor union, businesses, and individuals filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. They challenged immigration raids which occurred during the week of April 16, 1982, as part of "Project Jobs," a nation-wide enforcement action conducted by the INS and Border Patrol agents. The plaintiffs alleged that the workplace raids, which the government called "surveys" or "control operations," resulted in U.S. citizens and lawful resident aliens being unlawfully detained, interrogated, harassed, assaulted, transported, and falsely arrested solely because of their race, national origin, ancestry, and/or language, in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages, and class certification.

Attorneys with the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, California Rural Legal Assistance, the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, Inc., the National Lawyers Guild, the Employment Law Center, and private law firms represented the plaintiffs.

The District Court (Judge Robert P. Aguilar) certified the case as a class action, over objection of the defendants. International Molders' and Allied Workers' Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 102 F.R.D. 457 (N.D.Cal. Dec. 19, 1983). Then, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit raids of factories absent either voluntary employer consent, unprovoked exigent circumstances, or a valid and specific search warrant. Judge Aguilar issued the requested preliminary injunction and refused to stay the order pending appeal. International Molders' and Allied Workers' Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 643 F.Supp. 884 (N.D. Cal. 1986). The government appealed.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Eugene A. Wright, Circuit Judge) remanded the case with instructions to modify the scope of the injunction. International Molders' and Allied Workers' Local Union No. 164 v. Nelson, 799 F.2d 547 (9th Cir. 1986).

On remand, both parties moved for partial summary judgment. The District Court (Judge Aguilar) granted partial summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, finding that the search warrant used at the raid of the Petaluma Poultry plant was invalid. The defendants' cross-motion was denied. International Molders v. Nelson, 674 F.Supp. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1987). Subsequently, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to assert an additional claim that as a pattern and practice, the INS employs general warrants to gain entry to businesses and seize unnamed "others." The case then proceeded to trial.

At trial, the plaintiffs presented evidence for four months before resting their case-in-chief. The evidence included testimony and documents regarding the INS' use of general warrants at thirty-one different businesses. The defendants moved for a dismissal at the close of the plaintiffs' evidence. The Court denied the motion, finding that "the individually named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class have presented evidence in their case-in-chief to prove each of their claims by a preponderance of the evidence. Through the evidence of INS conduct at businesses other than those of the named employers, plaintiffs have shown the existence of a pattern and practice of unconstitutional entries into workplaces." Pearl Meadows Mushroom Farm, Inc. v. Nelson, 723 F.Supp. 432 (N.D.Cal.,1989). The exact progression of the case thereafter is unclear, as there is no docket available.

We do know that the case was eventually settled. On December 11, 1991, the District Court (Magistrate Judge Edward A. Infante) entered a declaratory judgment approving the parties' settlement agreement. The judgment set parameters for (1) entry by immigration officials into workplaces during workplace surveys (valid warrant, consent and exigent circumstances) (2) detentions during workplace surveys (arrests, persons detained, use of force).

Dan Dalton - 11/30/2007
Allison Hight - 10/19/2015


compress summary