Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, as part of a coalition of 22 attorneys general, has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in support of litigation challenging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's policy and practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests, her office announced on October 22.
Under federal law, immigration officers conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests must have probable cause to believe that an individual is unlawfully present in the United States and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained, the Michigan release states. The coalition argues — as its claim in the brief — that DHS officers routinely carry out warrantless arrests without determining whether the individual is an escape risk.
The brief was filed in Escobar-Molina v. DHS, a case challenging DHS's policy and practice of conducting warrantless civil immigration arrests in the District of Columbia. On December 2, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted, in part, a motion for a preliminary injunction in the case, according to the Michigan and Washington attorney general releases.
What the attorneys general say
“When immigration agents make unlawful arrests, the damage reaches far beyond the person taken into custody,” Nessel said. “Children miss school, workers stay home, and families become afraid to seek medical care or call the police when they need help, putting public safety at risk. The federal government has a duty to enforce immigration law, but it must do so legally.”
Washington Attorney General Nick Brown's office, announcing the same filing, said: “Checks and balances are essential if we want a country that is both governed and policed fairly.” California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office said the brief describes harms the coalition attributes to the practices, including students kept out of school, disrupted agricultural work, people discouraged from seeking medical care, and weakened relationships between immigrant communities and local law enforcement — all presented as the coalition's arguments, not as findings of the appeals court.
In filing the brief, Nessel joins the attorneys general of Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington, the Michigan release lists. The brief led by Bonta, Schwalb and Weiser was also reported in the California coverage.
An amicus brief is support from outside parties; it does not itself change the law or lift or impose an injunction. The D.C. Circuit has not ruled on the brief in the reports cited here, and DHS's position is not quoted in the state releases. Awaaz Punjab labels the claims about DHS practice as the coalition's allegations in its brief.