Judge Accuses Border Patrol of Racial Profiling in California Sweep, Limits Border Patrol Actions

1. Introduction: Federal Court Restricts Border Patrol Practices in Eastern California

On April 29, 2025, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a significant preliminary injunction, temporarily curtailing certain operational practices of the U.S. Border Patrol within the district. Presiding U.S. District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston granted the injunction in the case United Farm Workers v. Noem (Case No. 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB, E.D. Cal.), imposing specific restrictions on Border Patrol agents concerning stops and warrantless arrests.

The lawsuit, filed in February 2025 by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Foundations of Northern California, Southern California, and San Diego & Imperial Counties, along with Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, represents the United Farm Workers (UFW) labor union and five individuals allegedly targeted during a Border Patrol enforcement sweep. This sweep, internally dubbed “Operation Return to Sender,” occurred over several days in January 2025 within Kern County, California. Notably, these enforcement actions took place far from the physical U.S.-Mexico border—near Bakersfield, approximately 100 miles north of Los Angeles and over 300 miles inland from the El Centro Border Patrol Sector from which the agents originated.

Judge Thurston’s ruling represents a notable judicial intervention into the interior enforcement tactics employed by the Border Patrol, an agency operating under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The case brings into sharp focus the inherent tension between the federal government’s authority to enforce immigration laws and the constitutional protections afforded to individuals within the United States, particularly the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures. The judge’s commentary during court proceedings underscored the gravity of the allegations, particularly regarding racial profiling. Ahead of her ruling, Judge Thurston reportedly stated, “You just can’t walk up to people with brown skin and say, ‘Give me your papers,'” signaling deep concern about the alleged basis for the stops.

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of Judge Thurston’s preliminary injunction. It will examine the specific mandates and scope of the order, delve into the relevant legal framework governing Border Patrol authority and its constitutional limitations, detail the arguments presented in United Farm Workers v. Noem, provide background on Judge Thurston, assess the potential operational implications for the Border Patrol, summarize reactions from various stakeholders, and situate the ruling within the broader context of related legal challenges and judicial decisions.

Hiding in Plain Sight: The Gardener of Bridgehampton: Faustin Nsabumukunzi and the Echoes of Rwanda’s Genocide

2. The Preliminary Injunction: Scope and Specific Mandates

The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Thurston on April 29, 2025, in United Farm Workers v. Noem, Case No. 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB, imposes specific, temporary restrictions on U.S. Border Patrol operations within the Eastern District of California pending the final resolution of the lawsuit. The 88-page ruling addresses several key areas of Border Patrol conduct challenged by the plaintiffs.

• Prohibitions on Stops: The injunction explicitly prohibits Border Patrol agents from conducting “detentive stops” of individuals—whether on foot or in vehicles—unless the agents possess “reasonable suspicion that they are noncitizens and in the U.S. in violation of federal immigration law”. This mandate directly reflects established Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, which requires reasonable suspicion for brief investigatory stops (often called Terry stops in other contexts). The order implicitly rejects reliance on factors such as a person’s perceived race, ethnicity, or occupation, or their refusal to answer voluntary questions, as sufficient grounds alone for a detentive stop. Judge Thurston found evidence indicating a pattern of stops lacking this required constitutional standard.
• Prohibitions on Warrantless Arrests: The order bars Border Patrol agents from arresting individuals without a warrant, unless a specific exception applies: agents must have probable cause to believe the person is violating immigration law and “probable cause to believe the person is likely to flee” before a warrant can be obtained. This requirement stems from federal statute (8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2)) but is interpreted by the court through the lens of Fourth Amendment reasonableness. Crucially, the injunction emphasizes that this determination requires an “individualized flight risk assessment” for each person arrested without a warrant. The court found evidence suggesting a pattern of warrantless arrests performed without such required assessments during “Operation Return to Sender”.
• Restrictions on Voluntary Departure: Addressing allegations that individuals were coerced into agreeing to leave the country without understanding their rights, the injunction prohibits agents from processing individuals for “voluntary departure” unless the person has been fully informed of their rights, including the right to a hearing before an immigration judge, and provides knowing and voluntary consent to depart. This addresses specific plaintiff allegations that agents used coercion and deception to secure waivers of rights.
• Geographical Scope: The injunction’s directives apply specifically to Border Patrol operations conducted within the geographical boundaries of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. This is a vast area encompassing major inland cities like Fresno, Sacramento, and Bakersfield, as well as Redding and Yosemite National Park, extending far beyond the immediate border region.
• Mandatory Documentation and Reporting: To ensure compliance and facilitate oversight, Judge Thurston ordered the Border Patrol to meticulously document the specific facts and circumstances justifying any detentive stops or warrantless arrests made within the Eastern District. Furthermore, the agency must compile and submit reports detailing these instances every 60 days for the duration of the lawsuit. This information must also be provided to the plaintiffs’ legal counsel.
• Guidance Requirement: The court mandated that Border Patrol issue guidance to its agents to ensure their compliance with the Fourth Amendment and relevant federal laws concerning stops and arrests. Additionally, the agency is required to share its internal guidance regarding the determination of “reasonable suspicion” with the plaintiffs’ counsel.
• Provisional Class Certification: Concurrently with the injunction, Judge Thurston provisionally certified two plaintiff classes: the “Suspicionless Stop Class” and the “Warrantless Arrest Class”. This means the injunction’s protections extend not only to the named plaintiffs but to all individuals within the Eastern District who meet the class definitions and might be subjected to similar practices in the future.

It is important to recognize that the injunction, while significant, primarily serves to reinforce existing constitutional standards rather than invent new legal principles. Judge Thurston explicitly stated that the evidence indicated Border Patrol agents engaged in conduct violating “well-established constitutional rights”. Plaintiff advocates echoed this, characterizing the ruling as upholding decades of established law and reflecting existing legal requirements. The core requirements—reasonable suspicion for stops, probable cause for arrests—mirror standard Fourth Amendment doctrine applied to domestic law enforcement. The order’s specific impact lies in its direct application of these standards to Border Patrol’s interior enforcement activities within this district, its clarification regarding the flight-risk assessment for warrantless immigration arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2), and the imposition of court-ordered compliance mechanisms.

The mandatory documentation and reporting requirements function as prophylactic measures designed to prevent future violations and enable effective judicial oversight. By demanding detailed records of stops and warrantless arrests, and regular reports to the court and opposing counsel , the court created a tangible accountability framework. This approach appears directly linked to the judge’s rejection of the government’s argument that the case was moot due to newly issued internal guidance. The court found that guidance insufficient and potentially impermanent, opting instead for a more robust, verifiable system to ensure compliance throughout the litigation. This suggests a judicial determination that merely reiterating the legal standard was insufficient given the evidence of past practices.

Federal Blitz in Colorado Springs: DEA-Led Raid Nets 114 Immigrants, Military Personnel at Alleged Drug & Gang Hub

3. Legal Framework: Border Patrol Authority and Fourth Amendment Limits

Understanding Judge Thurston’s injunction requires examining the interplay between the statutory authority granted to Border Patrol agents and the overarching constraints imposed by the U.S. Constitution, primarily the Fourth Amendment.

• Statutory Authority (8 U.S.C. § 1357): Congress, through the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), grants specific powers to designated immigration officers, including Border Patrol agents. Key provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1357 include:

• The power to interrogate, without warrant, any person believed to be an alien about their right to be or remain in the United States (§ 1357(a)(1)).
• The authority to arrest without a warrant under two specific circumstances (§ 1357(a)(2)): (1) if an alien attempts to enter the U.S. illegally in the officer’s presence or view, or (2) if the officer has “reason to believe” that an alien is in the United States in violation of any law or regulation and is “likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained”. The “reason to believe” standard and the “likely to escape” requirement are central to the controversy in UFW v. Noem.
• The power to access private lands, but not dwellings, within 25 miles of any external boundary for the purpose of patrolling the border (§ 1357(a)(3)). This section also grants authority to board and search any vessel, railway car, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States” to search for aliens. Federal regulations define this “reasonable distance” as within 100 air miles of any external boundary, including coastlines (8 C.F.R. § 287.1).

• Constitutional Constraints (Fourth Amendment): The Fourth Amendment guarantees “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” This protection applies to actions taken by Border Patrol agents. The core command of the Fourth Amendment is “reasonableness,” which the Supreme Court determines by balancing the government’s interests against the degree of intrusion on an individual’s privacy. While the Amendment expresses a preference for warrants based on probable cause, the Court has recognized exceptions where obtaining a warrant is impractical or unnecessary.
• The Border Search Exception: One major exception is the “border search doctrine.” Recognizing the sovereign’s inherent authority to control its borders and the reduced expectation of privacy for individuals seeking entry, the Supreme Court permits federal officers to conduct routine searches and seizures at the international border and its “functional equivalents” (like international airports or ports of entry where international travelers first arrive) without a warrant and without any individualized suspicion. Routine searches typically involve inspections of luggage, vehicles, and outer clothing. However, more intrusive “non-routine” searches—such as strip searches, body cavity searches, or prolonged detentions for medical examination—require at least “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity.
• Searches and Stops Away From the Border: Crucially, the broad, suspicionless authority granted at the physical border does not extend automatically throughout the 100-mile zone defined by regulation. The Supreme Court has established different, more protective standards for Border Patrol actions conducted within the United States, away from the border or its functional equivalents:

• Fixed Checkpoints: At permanent immigration checkpoints located on highways leading away from the border, agents may briefly stop vehicles and question occupants about their immigration status without individualized suspicion of wrongdoing (United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976)). The Court reasoned that these stops are minimally intrusive and serve a significant public interest. However, searches of vehicles at these checkpoints still require probable cause (United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975)).
• Roving Patrols: For Border Patrol agents on “roving patrols” (i.e., not at fixed checkpoints) who stop vehicles in areas near the border, the Fourth Amendment requires “reasonable suspicion” based on “specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts,” that the vehicle contains individuals unlawfully present in the country (United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975)). The Court explicitly held that appearing to be of Mexican ancestry, by itself, is insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion. To conduct a search of a vehicle stopped by a roving patrol, agents need probable cause (Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)).
• Extended Border Searches: Some lower courts recognize the concept of an “extended border search,” allowing warrantless searches away from the border if agents have “reasonable certainty” that a border crossing occurred and “reasonable suspicion” of ongoing illegal activity related to that crossing. The Supreme Court has not explicitly endorsed this doctrine.
• Legal Standards Analysis: It is essential to distinguish between the levels of suspicion required for different government actions. “Reasonable suspicion” is a lower standard than “probable cause.” It requires specific, articulable facts that, taken together with rational inferences, suggest criminal activity may be afoot; it is more than a mere hunch but less than proof by a preponderance of the evidence. “Probable cause,” the standard generally required for warrants and arrests, exists when the facts and circumstances known to the officer are sufficient to warrant a prudent person in believing that the suspect has committed or is committing an offense. The statutory standard in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) for warrantless arrests—”reason to believe” the person is illegally present and likely to escape—presents a point of legal interpretation. Judge Thurston’s order requires “probable cause” regarding the likelihood of escape , effectively aligning the statutory requirement with the constitutional minimum for seizures (arrests).

Operation Tidal Wave: Looking Closer at Florida’s Multi-Agency Immigration Crackdown 700-800 Arrested

A persistent misconception is that the 100-mile zone designated by regulation constitutes a “Constitution-free zone.” The legal framework demonstrates this is incorrect. While 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(3) and 8 C.F.R. § 287.1 grant Border Patrol agents expanded operational authority within this area (e.g., to board vehicles) , they do not suspend Fourth Amendment protections. As established by the Supreme Court, the level of constitutional scrutiny increases as law enforcement actions move further inland from the physical border or its functional equivalents. Judge Thurston’s application of reasonable suspicion for stops and probable cause for warrantless arrests within the Eastern District of California, far from the border, directly reflects these established principles for interior enforcement.

Furthermore, the standard for warrantless arrests under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2) highlights a potential tension between statutory language and constitutional requirements. The statute uses the term “reason to believe,” while the Fourth Amendment generally demands “probable cause” for an arrest (a seizure). Judge Thurston’s injunction requires “probable cause to believe the person is likely to flee”. This could be interpreted in several ways: as equating “reason to believe” with probable cause in this specific context, as applying the minimum constitutional standard required for any arrest irrespective of the statutory language, or, as critics argue, as improperly heightening the statutory standard. Courts often employ the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, interpreting statutes in a manner consistent with constitutional requirements. Thus, Judge Thurston may be ensuring that the statutory authority for warrantless arrests is exercised only in a way that satisfies the Fourth Amendment’s reasonableness requirement, particularly given the significant intrusion of an arrest and the statute’s explicit condition regarding the likelihood of escape.

The following table summarizes the varying legal standards applicable to Border Patrol actions based on location and type of intrusion:

Table 1: Legal Standards for Border Patrol Actions

Location/Action	Required Standard	Key Case/Statute
Border Entry / Functional Equivalent (Routine Search/Stop)	No Suspicion	Border Search Doctrine
Border Entry / Functional Equivalent (Non-Routine Search/Detention)	Reasonable Suspicion (minimum)	United States v. Montoya de Hernandez
Fixed Checkpoint (Stop for Brief Questioning)	No Individualized Suspicion	United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
Fixed Checkpoint (Search)	Probable Cause	United States v. Ortiz
Roving Patrol (Stop)	Reasonable Suspicion	United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
Roving Patrol (Search)	Probable Cause	Almeida-Sanchez v. United States
Warrantless Arrest (§1357(a)(2) – Thurston Order)	Probable Cause (Illegal Presence + Likely to Flee)	UFW v. Noem (Prelim. Injunction)
Warrantless Arrest (§1357(a)(2) – Statute)	Reason to Believe (Illegal Presence + Likely to Escape)	8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2)
Warrant Arrest	Probable Cause	Fourth Amendment

This table clarifies the complex legal landscape, demonstrating that the standards applied by Judge Thurston align with established Fourth Amendment principles for law enforcement actions conducted away from the border, while specifically interpreting the requirements for warrantless arrests under § 1357(a)(2).

4. The Case: United Farm Workers v. Noem

The preliminary injunction emerged directly from the specific facts and legal arguments presented in United Farm Workers v. Noem. The case centers on the Border Patrol’s “Operation Return to Sender,” conducted by agents from the El Centro Sector who traveled over 300 miles north into Kern County in January 2025.

• Background and Allegations: The plaintiffs alleged that this operation constituted a nearly weeklong sweep through predominantly Latino communities, targeting individuals who “appeared to be farmworkers or day laborers” for stops and arrests, irrespective of their actual immigration status or individualized grounds for suspicion. The lawsuit included numerous sworn declarations from affected individuals detailing alleged abuses. These included agents in plain clothes or unmarked vehicles blocking cars, smashing car windows, slashing tires, physically assaulting individuals, using racial slurs (such as “Mexican bitches”), and demanding “papers” based solely on appearance. Plaintiffs asserted that those arrested were bussed hundreds of miles south to the El Centro station, held incommunicado without access to family or legal counsel, and subjected to coercion and deception to sign “voluntary departure” forms, thereby waiving their right to see an immigration judge. The operation resulted in the arrest of 78 individuals, of whom 77 reportedly had no prior criminal or immigration history. Plaintiffs claimed at least 40 long-term Kern County residents were consequently stranded in Mexico, separated from their families and communities.
• Plaintiffs’ Arguments: The UFW and individual plaintiffs, represented by the ACLU and Keker, Van Nest & Peters, argued that these practices constituted clear violations of established law. They contended the stops based on appearance or location violated the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonable suspicion. They argued the warrantless arrests, made without individualized assessments of flight risk, violated both the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement and the specific conditions of 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2). They further argued that coercing individuals into signing voluntary departure forms violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to halt these practices immediately and requested provisional class certification to protect others similarly situated within the Eastern District.
• Defendants’ Arguments: The government attorneys representing DHS and Border Patrol officials opposed the motions. They raised jurisdictional challenges, arguing that federal law generally limits judicial review of immigration matters until after a final order of removal is issued by an immigration judge. Their primary defense on the merits was that the lawsuit was moot. They asserted that the Border Patrol had already addressed the plaintiffs’ concerns by issuing new internal guidance (referred to as a “muster” from the El Centro Sector) and implementing retraining for agents regarding the proper standards for stops, arrests, flight risk assessments, and detainee rights. They argued that granting an injunction despite these prompt corrective actions would disincentivize agencies from responding proactively to complaints in the future. The government also noted that most individuals apprehended during the operation were ultimately found to be unlawfully present.
• Judge Thurston’s Findings and Rationale: In her detailed 88-page ruling, Judge Thurston sided with the plaintiffs on the preliminary motions. She found that the plaintiffs had presented credible evidence establishing a “pattern and practice” of Border Patrol agents conducting detentive stops without the requisite reasonable suspicion and making warrantless arrests without performing the necessary individualized flight risk assessments. She concluded that this conduct “violated well-established constitutional rights”. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, she explicitly rejected Hispanic appearance alone as a basis for reasonable suspicion.

Judge Thurston decisively rejected the government’s mootness argument. She found the timing of the new guidance—issued just one business day before the government’s opposition brief was due—suspicious. More substantively, she determined the language of the new policy was “neither broad in scope nor unequivocal in tone” and failed to fully address all the plaintiffs’ concerns, particularly regarding stops by agents on foot patrol as opposed to vehicle stops. She also noted there was no guarantee the policy wouldn’t be changed again in the future, stating that even policies existing for months do not necessarily render a case moot. The judge further pointed to evidence suggesting the El Centro Sector intended to conduct similar operations elsewhere in the district, indicating a likelihood of recurrence. She also questioned the necessity of new guidance, remarking that agents receive constitutional training at the academy. Based on these findings, she concluded the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, justifying the preliminary injunction.

The court’s handling of the mootness argument reveals a degree of judicial skepticism towards policy changes implemented by government agencies only after litigation has commenced. The judge’s analysis suggests a concern that such changes might be strategic maneuvers aimed at defeating the lawsuit rather than representing genuine, comprehensive, and durable reforms. By scrutinizing the timing, scope, and permanence of the Border Patrol’s new guidance , Judge Thurston applied the principle that voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case unless the defendant meets the heavy burden of showing the conduct cannot reasonably be expected to recur. Her decision indicates a preference for court-ordered relief with ongoing monitoring (via the documentation requirements) over reliance on potentially incomplete or reversible internal agency policies.

Furthermore, the ruling underscores the significance of anecdotal evidence in establishing a pattern or practice sufficient to warrant injunctive relief at the preliminary stage. The plaintiffs relied heavily on sworn declarations from individuals detailing their experiences during “Operation Return to Sender”. Although the government apparently did not contest the specifics of these individual accounts , Judge Thurston found this cumulative evidence sufficient to establish a “pattern and practice” of constitutional violations. This demonstrates that a collection of consistent and credible individual narratives can carry significant legal weight in challenging systemic practices, even in the absence of comprehensive statistical data, particularly when seeking preliminary relief.

5. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston: Background and Judicial Approach

Judge Jennifer L. Thurston presides over the United Farm Workers v. Noem case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. Appointed to this position by President Joe Biden, she was nominated on September 20, 2021, confirmed by the U.S. Senate on December 17, 2021, by a vote of 46-24, and received her judicial commission on December 27, 2021.

Her path to the district court bench included extensive prior judicial experience within the same court. Judge Thurston served as a U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of California for twelve years, from December 31, 2009, until her elevation to District Judge. During her tenure as a magistrate judge, she served as the court’s Chief Magistrate Judge from October 2020 to December 2021.

Judge Thurston’s educational background includes a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from California State University, Bakersfield (1989), a Juris Doctor from the California Pacific School of Law (1997), and a Master of Laws (LL.M.) from Duke University School of Law (2018). Before her appointment to the bench in 2009, she worked as a Deputy County Counsel for the Office of the Kern County Counsel in Bakersfield from 1997 to 2009. In this role, she handled a wide range of litigation in state and federal courts, including civil rights cases, wrongful death actions, election law challenges, and employment disputes. She also became a Certified Appellate Specialist in 2005, handling numerous appeals and writs before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the California Fifth District Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court. Additionally, she served on the U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on the Judicial Branch, an appointment made by Chief Justice John G. Roberts in 2019.

While definitive statements about judicial philosophy are often elusive, Judge Thurston’s actions and statements in the UFW v. Noem case offer some indications of her approach. Her emphasis on adherence to “well-established constitutional rights” suggests a grounding in foundational legal principles. Her skepticism regarding the need for new Border Patrol guidance on constitutional standards, given existing academy training , points towards an expectation that law enforcement officers possess a fundamental understanding of constitutional limits. Her prior experience litigating civil rights cases may also inform her perspective. In responses to written questions during her Senate confirmation process, Judge Thurston provided standard judicial answers, affirming the importance of precedent (citing cases like D.C. v. Heller) and the standard for qualified immunity. She stated that judges must decide cases based on law and evidence, not personal views of equity, and acknowledged the concept of implicit bias, emphasizing a judge’s duty to ensure decisions are based on evidence and law rather than unconscious assumptions.

The UFW v. Noem preliminary injunction stands out as a notable ruling concerning the application of the Fourth Amendment to federal immigration enforcement actions conducted far from the border. While other specific rulings on similar Fourth Amendment or immigration issues were not detailed in the available materials, her long tenure handling diverse federal matters as a magistrate judge implies significant judicial experience.

Judge Thurston’s twelve years as a U.S. Magistrate Judge undoubtedly provided her with substantial experience in managing federal litigation. Magistrate judges routinely handle pretrial matters, including discovery disputes, scheduling conferences, settlement conferences, and ruling on various motions. They also preside over civil trials where parties consent. This extensive practical experience likely equipped her with a deep understanding of the procedural complexities of federal court, the standards for preliminary injunctive relief (including the Winter factors often cited in such analyses ), and the requirements for class certification. Her thorough, 88-page ruling in UFW v. Noem reflects the meticulous engagement with evidence and legal standards expected from a judge well-versed in federal practice and procedure.

6. Implications and Consequences for Border Patrol Operations

Judge Thurston’s preliminary injunction carries significant potential implications for U.S. Border Patrol operations, particularly within the Eastern District of California, and potentially beyond if its reasoning proves influential.

• Procedural Changes in E.D. Cal.: The most direct consequence is the mandated change in operational procedures for Border Patrol agents working within the vast Eastern District. Agents must now rigorously ensure they have articulable reasonable suspicion, based on more than just appearance or perceived occupation, before initiating any detentive stop. For warrantless arrests, the standard is heightened: agents must not only have probable cause regarding an immigration violation but also make and document an individualized assessment establishing probable cause to believe the individual is likely to flee before a warrant can be secured. These requirements demand a higher level of justification and documentation than may have been employed during “Operation Return to Sender.”
• Documentation Burden and Enhanced Oversight: The injunction imposes a considerable administrative burden through its requirement for detailed documentation of all detentive stops and warrantless arrests, coupled with bi-monthly reporting to the court and plaintiffs’ counsel. While burdensome, this mechanism significantly enhances transparency and creates a framework for ongoing judicial and adversarial oversight of Border Patrol practices in the district. This increased scrutiny could encourage more cautious and constitutionally compliant enforcement actions.
• Impact on Enforcement Effectiveness: Critics, particularly those viewing the ruling as judicial overreach, argue that these requirements will severely hamper Border Patrol’s ability to conduct effective interior enforcement. They contend that obtaining warrants or meeting the probable cause standard for flight risk in the field, often in remote areas or situations requiring rapid decisions far from judicial officers, is logistically impractical or infeasible. This perspective suggests the ruling could create “operational chaos,” effectively grant “de facto immunity” to some undocumented individuals by making arrests too difficult, slow down processing and deportations (especially with the informed consent requirement for voluntary departure), and ultimately undermine border security efforts by nullifying statutory arrest authority.
• Impact on Individual Rights and Community Relations: Conversely, proponents of the injunction emphasize its role in safeguarding constitutional rights and preventing discriminatory practices. From this viewpoint, the ruling affirms the dignity of individuals, particularly those in Latino and immigrant communities, by holding Border Patrol accountable for alleged racial profiling and unlawful detentions and arrests. The order may help alleviate fear within communities that felt targeted by operations like “Return to Sender,” fostering greater trust if compliance is perceived.
• Training Implications: Regardless of the judge’s skepticism about the need for new guidance , the ruling clearly necessitates that Border Patrol ensure its agents operating in the Eastern District understand and apply the specific standards articulated in the injunction. While the government had already indicated retraining efforts were underway , the court order adds legal force to this requirement and sets specific benchmarks for compliance.

The injunction’s impact can be viewed through two competing lenses. On one hand, the heightened standards and documentation requirements could exert a “chilling effect” on Border Patrol’s interior enforcement activities. Agents might become overly cautious, potentially hesitating to make legitimate stops or arrests due to the complexity of the legal standards, the administrative burden of documentation, or the fear of judicial scrutiny and litigation. The government’s argument in court regarding incentives also hinted at a concern that such injunctions might discourage proactive internal reforms. On the other hand, these same requirements can be seen as essential constitutional guardrails. Given Judge Thurston’s findings of a past “pattern and practice” of constitutional violations and the disturbing accounts of alleged abuses during “Operation Return to Sender” , the injunction’s mandates—particularly the documentation rules —serve as necessary corrective measures. They aim to ensure that Border Patrol operates within established constitutional boundaries, addressing the lack of transparency that may have enabled prior alleged abuses, even if it introduces operational friction.

It is also crucial to recognize that this case specifically addresses Border Patrol operations conducted significantly inland, far from the physical border. The legal standards applied—reasonable suspicion for stops, probable cause for arrests—are those developed by the Supreme Court for interior enforcement scenarios (Brignoni-Ponce, Almeida-Sanchez), not the unique, less stringent standards applicable under the border search doctrine at the immediate border or its functional equivalents. The allegations centered on interactions within communities, such as outside stores or in residential neighborhoods , rather than interdictions at the point of entry. This context explains why standard Fourth Amendment principles, rather than the border search exception, are paramount to the ruling and its implications.

7. Reactions and Perspectives

The issuance of the preliminary injunction in United Farm Workers v. Noem elicited strong reactions, reflecting the deeply polarized views surrounding immigration enforcement in the United States.

• Plaintiffs and Advocates: Civil rights organizations and immigrant advocates, including the ACLU and the UFW, lauded the decision as a significant victory. Bree Bernwanger, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, stated, “Today’s order affirms the dignity and constitutional rights of all people,” and called it a “powerful message” that the raids were illegal. UFW President Teresa Romero declared, “This order rightfully upholds the law. Border Patrol can’t just wade into communities snatching up hardworking people without due process, just for being brown and working class”. Franco Muzzio, a partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters representing the plaintiffs, asserted, “The Court’s decision today makes clear that Border Patrol’s lawless practices cannot continue”. California Attorney General Rob Bonta also weighed in, observing that the judge’s order reflects existing law. These reactions consistently frame the ruling as a necessary affirmation of fundamental constitutional rights against discriminatory and unlawful government conduct.
• Government Agencies (DHS/CBP): The available materials do not contain official public statements from DHS or CBP issued after the injunction was granted specifically addressing Judge Thurston’s findings or the terms of the order. The government’s position is primarily evident through its legal arguments presented in court opposing the injunction, focusing on jurisdictional defenses, mootness based on internal policy changes, and the equities favoring denial due to the agency’s responsive actions. One source includes a quote attributed to a DHS Assistant Secretary under the Trump administration (despite the 2025 date of the ruling), expressing commitment to the “rule of law” and asserting that judges would not stop their enforcement efforts. However, the potential inaccuracy of this attribution or dating requires caution in interpreting it as the current administration’s formal response to this specific injunction. The lack of a direct, public rebuttal from the agencies post-injunction (within the provided sources) is notable, though it could stem from various factors including litigation strategy or the preliminary nature of the order.
• Legal Experts and Critics: While formal legal scholarship specifically analyzing this very recent preliminary injunction is likely still developing, commentary found in less formal sources, such as a Reddit discussion thread, offers a sharply critical perspective. This viewpoint characterizes Judge Thurston’s ruling as “judicial overreach” and an intentional provocation aimed at inciting a “constitutional crisis.” Critics argue the injunction contradicts federal law (specifically the “reason to believe” standard in 8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2)) and Supreme Court precedent, imposing impractical standards (warrants or heightened suspicion for warrantless arrests) that create “operational chaos” and paralyze Border Patrol’s ability to function effectively. This perspective often attributes the ruling to political motivations, highlighting Judge Thurston’s appointment by President Biden. Other legal materials provided discuss the general legal framework of border searches and Fourth Amendment law or related but distinct cases like the Texas razor wire litigation , but do not offer direct commentary on the UFW v. Noem injunction itself.

The stark contrast between the celebratory reactions from advocates and the severe criticism from commentators highlights the intense polarization surrounding immigration enforcement and the role of the judiciary. One side views the injunction as a vital check on executive power and a defense of constitutional rights against discriminatory practices. The other sees it as unwarranted judicial interference in legitimate federal law enforcement, driven by political motives and detrimental to national security and the rule of law. There appears to be little common ground in these initial reactions, mirroring the broader national debate where immigration enforcement actions are frequently interpreted through conflicting lenses of individual rights versus state sovereignty and security.

8. Comparative Analysis: Contextualizing the Thurston Ruling

Judge Thurston’s preliminary injunction in UFW v. Noem, while specific to the Eastern District of California, resonates with broader legal trends and ongoing challenges concerning Border Patrol practices and authority, particularly regarding interior enforcement.

• Racial Profiling Litigation: The allegations of targeting individuals based on their appearance as Latino farmworkers or day laborers place this case within a long history of litigation challenging alleged racial profiling by Border Patrol agents, especially during operations conducted away from the immediate border. The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975) established that while ethnicity can be a relevant factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis for a roving patrol stop near the border, it cannot be the sole factor. Judge Thurston’s findings and explicit reference to Ninth Circuit precedent barring reliance solely on Hispanic appearance reinforce this principle. Similar lawsuits alleging racial profiling during interior stops and checkpoint operations have been filed by the ACLU and other groups in states like Texas, Arizona, Washington, and Michigan, sometimes resulting in settlements involving policy changes or enhanced training. For instance, a 2012 lawsuit by the Washington ACLU regarding roving patrols in the Olympic Peninsula led to a settlement requiring additional agent training and public disclosure of traffic stop data.
• Challenges to Warrantless Authority: The injunction contributes to the ongoing legal debate over the scope of Border Patrol’s warrantless search, seizure, and arrest powers under 8 U.S.C. § 1357 and the Fourth Amendment, particularly within the expansive 100-mile border zone. Judge Thurston’s application of standard Fourth Amendment requirements (reasonable suspicion for stops, probable cause plus flight risk for warrantless arrests) to interior operations contrasts sharply with the suspicionless authority permitted at the physical border under the border search exception. This aligns with legal scholarship and court decisions emphasizing heightened constitutional protections away from the border. This debate extends to other areas, such as the controversial practice of warrantless searches of travelers’ electronic devices (cell phones, laptops) at the border, where courts are increasingly scrutinizing CBP’s authority in light of modern privacy expectations, sometimes requiring warrants or heightened suspicion.
• Other Injunctions Against BP/DHS Practices: While distinct in its specific legal basis (Fourth and Fifth Amendments applied to interior stops/arrests), the UFW v. Noem injunction can be compared to other judicial orders restraining federal immigration enforcement activities. Courts have issued injunctions concerning inhumane detention conditions , the implementation or termination of policies like the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP) based on Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations , or actions near previously designated “sensitive locations” like schools and churches (though this policy was rescinded by the Trump administration in early 2025 ). The ongoing litigation between Texas and the federal government over the state’s installation of razor wire and buoys, involving disputes over property rights, sovereign immunity, and the scope of federal versus state authority in border enforcement, presents another related but legally distinct conflict involving judicial intervention.
• Interior vs. Border Enforcement Focus: This case strongly underscores the critical distinction between Border Patrol’s mission at the immediate border (preventing unlawful entry) and its activities further inland (locating individuals already within the U.S.). As agents operate deeper within the country, individuals’ expectations of privacy increase, and the legal justifications for suspicionless or lower-standard intrusions weaken significantly. Judge Thurston’s ruling applying standard Fourth Amendment principles to actions in Kern County exemplifies the application of this tiered legal framework.

A recurring theme across much of this related litigation is the demand for greater accountability and transparency from Border Patrol and its parent agency, DHS. Judge Thurston’s injunction, with its specific requirements for documenting stops and arrests and providing regular reports , reflects this trend. Litigants and courts increasingly seek remedies that go beyond mere declarations of law, incorporating concrete mechanisms designed to monitor compliance, deter future misconduct, and provide data for ongoing oversight. Similar remedies, such as mandated data collection and disclosure, policy revisions, or enhanced training, have been features of settlements or court orders in other cases challenging Border Patrol practices. The requirement in this case for Border Patrol to share its guidance on reasonable suspicion with plaintiffs’ counsel also serves this accountability function. This pattern suggests a growing recognition that ensuring adherence to constitutional standards in the complex context of immigration enforcement may require proactive, verifiable measures beyond simply restating legal obligations.

9. Conclusion: Ongoing Litigation and Broader Significance

The preliminary injunction issued by Judge Jennifer L. Thurston in United Farm Workers v. Noem represents a significant, albeit interim, judicial check on U.S. Border Patrol’s interior enforcement practices within the Eastern District of California. Effective while the underlying lawsuit proceeds, the order mandates adherence to established Fourth Amendment standards for stops (reasonable suspicion) and warrantless arrests (probable cause including individualized flight risk assessment), restricts coercive “voluntary departures,” and imposes specific documentation and reporting requirements.

The case crystallizes the fundamental conflict between the federal government’s statutory authority and perceived duty to enforce immigration laws throughout the nation, and the constitutional rights guaranteed to all persons within the United States under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Judge Thurston’s ruling underscores that even within the expansive 100-mile “border zone” defined by regulation, constitutional protections remain firmly in place, and government actions are subject to judicial review for reasonableness. The court’s intervention, based on findings of a pattern of practices violating “well-established constitutional rights” , highlights the judiciary’s crucial role in interpreting and enforcing these limits on executive branch agencies, particularly those wielding law enforcement powers. However, the sharp criticisms leveled against the ruling also demonstrate the contentiousness surrounding this judicial role in the politically charged arena of immigration enforcement.While the ultimate outcome of UFW v. Noem remains pending, the preliminary injunction itself carries broader significance. It serves as a pointed reminder that interior immigration enforcement operations, especially those conducted far from the physical border, are subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny compared to actions at the border itself. The ruling reinforces the principle that factors like race or perceived occupation cannot form the sole basis for reasonable suspicion. Furthermore, the court’s imposition of specific compliance mechanisms, such as documentation and reporting, reflects a broader trend in civil rights litigation seeking tangible accountability from law enforcement agencies. Should the injunction be upheld or its reasoning prove influential in other jurisdictions, it could impact Border Patrol training, policies, and operational strategies nationwide, contributing to the evolving legal landscape governing the intersection of immigration enforcement and constitutional rights within the United States. The case adds another chapter to the persistent and difficult legal and societal challenge of combating racial profiling while enabling effective law enforcement.

Works cited:

1. ACLU of Northern CA. United Farm Workers v. Noem. https://www.aclunc.org/our-work/legal-docket/united-farm-workers-v-noem
   
2. ACLU of Southern California. Case 1:25-at-00165 Document 1 Filed 02/26/25 Page 1 of 71. https://www.aclusocal.org/sites/default/files/001_complaint.pdf
   
3. ACLU of Southern California. United Farm Workers and Bakersfield Residents Sue Border Patrol for Unlawful Practices. https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/united-farm-workers-and-bakersfield-residents-sue-border-patrol-unlawful-practices
   
4. ACLU of Washington. Lawsuit Challenges Unconstitutional Stops and Interrogations by Border Patrol Agents. https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/lawsuit-challenges-unconstitutional-stops-and-interrogations-border-patrol-agents
   
5. ACLU. Know Your Rights | 100 Mile Border Zone. https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
   
6. ACLU of Arizona. ACLU’s Border Litigation Project. https://www.acluaz.org/en/campaigns/aclus-border-litigation-project
   
7. ACLU of New Mexico. Know Your Rights in the 100 Mile Border Zone. https://www.aclu-nm.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-100-mile-border-zone
   
8. Anadolu Ajansı. Federal judge orders US Border Patrol to stop conducting illegal stops, warrantless arrests in California. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/americas/federal-judge-orders-us-border-patrol-to-stop-conducting-illegal-stops-warrantless-arrests-in-california/3552633
   
9. Ballotpedia. Jennifer L. Thurston. https://ballotpedia.org/Jennifer_L._Thurston
   
10. Ballotpedia. United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_California
    
11. Boston 25 News. US judge bars Border Patrol from some warrantless arrests of suspected undocumented residents. https://www.boston25news.com/news/politics/us-judge-bars-border/ASKU3ASQLFCLJF2MX4LLWGCJEM/
    
12. California Lawyers Association. Meet the Eastern District’s Newest District Judge: Jennifer L. Thurston. https://calawyers.org/litigation/meet-the-eastern-districts-newest-district-judge-jennifer-l-thurston/
    
13. Center for Public Integrity. ‘Shocked and humiliated’: Lawsuits accuse Customs, Border officers of invasive searches of minors, women. https://publicintegrity.org/inequality-poverty-opportunity/immigration/shocked-and-humiliated-lawsuits-accuse-customs-border-officers-of-invasive-searches-of-minors-women/
    
14. Clearinghouse.net. Case: United Farm Workers v. Noem – Civil Rights Litigation …. https://clearinghouse.net/case/46182/
    
15. Congress.gov. Searches and Seizures at the Border and the Fourth Amendment. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46601
    
16. Constitution Annotated – Congress.gov. Amdt4.6.6.3 Searches Beyond the Border. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt4-6-6-3/ALDE_00000239/
    
17. CRS Products from the Library of Congress. Searches and Seizures at the Border and the Fourth Amendment. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46601/1
    
18. CRS Reports. U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Powers and Limitations: A Primer. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10559
    
19. Courthouse News. Judge bars Border Patrol from racial profiling, warrantless arrests in California sweep. https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-bars-border-patrol-from-racial-profiling-warrantless-arrests-in-california-sweep/
    
20. Department of Homeland Security. Court Ordered Reimplementation of the Migrant Protection Protocols. https://www.dhs.gov/archive/court-ordered-reimplementation-migrant-protection-protocols
    
21. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Federal Judge Makes History in Holding That Border Searches of Cell Phones Require a Warrant. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/federal-judge-makes-history-holding-border-searches-cell-phones-require-warrant
    
22. El Paso Matters. Trump lifts protections against immigration enforcement at schools, churches, hospitals and other sensitive areas. https://elpasomatters.org/2025/01/21/border-patrol-ice-enforcement-near-schools-hospitals-churches/
    
23. Every CRS Report. Protecting the US Perimeter: “Border Searches” Under the Fourth Amendment. https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20080115_RL31826_bb21cdf0419fbd1259cb2fe347e80b9a5fd94cb5.pdf
    
24. Federal Judicial Center. U.S. District Courts for the Districts of California: Judges of all Districts. https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/u.s.-district-courts-districts-california-judges-all-districts
    
25. Federal Judicial Center. U.S. District Courts for the Districts of California: Succession Charts. https://www.fjc.gov/history/courts/us-district-courts-districts-california-succession-charts
    
26. Governing Magazine. Texas Border Patrol Makes Arrests Pretty Far Away from the Border. https://www.governing.com/archive/why-texas-border-patrol-makes-arrests-pretty-far-away-from-the-border.html
    
27. iHeart – 102.7 KIIS-FM | LA Local News. Judge Limits Border Patrol Stops in California. https://kiisfm.iheart.com/featured/la-local-news/content/2025-04-30-judge-limits-border-patrol-stops-in-california/
    
28. iHeart – 104.3 MYFM | LA Local News. Judge Limits Border Patrol Stops in California. https://1043myfm.iheart.com/featured/la-local-news/content/2025-04-30-judge-limits-border-patrol-stops-in-california/
    
29. Justia Law. Texas v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 23-50869 (5th Cir. 2024). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca5/23-50869/23-50869-2024-11-27.html
    
30. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce | 422 U.S. 873 (1975). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/873/
    
31. Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. United States v. Martinez-Fuerte | 428 U.S. 543 (1976). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/428/543/
    
32. KPBS. Texas Court Case Challenges Border Patrol On Roving, Racial Profiling. https://www.kpbs.org/news/border-immigration/2014/11/13/texas-court-case-challenges-border-patrol-roving-r
    
33. Law.Cornell.Edu. Searches Beyond the Border | U.S. Constitution Annotated. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/searches-beyond-the-border
    
34. Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. Roving Border Searches for Illegal Aliens: Avoiding the Exclusionary Rule. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2238&context=mulr
    
35. Newsweek. Federal Judge Imposes New Limits on Some Border Patrol Arrests. https://www.newsweek.com/federal-judge-imposes-new-limits-border-patrol-arrests-2065805
    
36. New CAED – United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. United States District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston (JLT). https://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/judges/all-judges/5022/united-states-district-judge-jennifer-l-thurston-jlt/
    
37. Penn State Law eLibrary. The Fifth Circuit Court’s Failures with its Recent Border Fence Ruling. https://elibrary.law.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=ilsblog
    
38. POGO (Project On Government Oversight). The Border Zone Next Door, and Its Out-of-Control Police Force. https://www.pogo.org/reports/the-border-zone-next-door-and-its-out-of-control-police-force
    
39. Reddit. CMV: District Judges, Including Judge Jennifer L. Thurston, Are Intentionally Inciting a Constitutional Crisis Through Interference in Illegal Immigration Enforcement : r/changemyview. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1kblr73/cmv_district_judges_including_judge_jennifer_l/
    
40. Reddit. r/changemyview – CMV – Reddit. https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/top/
    
41. SCOTUSblog. Department of Homeland Security v. Texas. https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/department-of-homeland-security-v-texas/
    
42. Senator Chuck Grassley, Ranking Member. Questions for the Record Judge Jennifer L. Thurston Nominee to be United States District. https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/download/jennifer-thurston-responses-to-questions-for-the-record?download=1
    
43. SGP.fas.org. Searches and Seizures at the Border and the Fourth Amendment. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/R46601.pdf
    
44. Texas A&M Law Scholarship. On the Fringes of the Fourth Amendment: Changing Reasonableness at the Border. https://scholarship.law.tamu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=student-scholarship
    
45. The ACLU of Northern California. BREAKING: Court Bars Border Patrol’s Unlawful Stop-and-Arrest Practices. https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/breaking-court-bars-border-patrols-unlawful-stop-and-arrest-practices
    
46. The ACLU of Northern California. Case 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB Document 47 Filed 04/29/25 Page 1 of 88. https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/UFW%20v%20Noem%20PI%20CLASS%20CERT%20RULING_04.29.pdf
    
47. The United Farm Workers of America. Preliminary injunction applies to future Border Patrol operations in the Eastern District of California. https://ufw.org/preliminary-injunction-applies-to-future-border-patrol-operations-in-the-eastern-district-of-california/
    
48. U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Analysis of Supreme Court Decisions Relating to Extended Border Searches for Illegal Aliens. https://www.usccr.gov/files/historical/1975/75-009.pdf
    
49. United Farm Workers of America. BREAKING: Court Bars Border Patrol’s Unlawful Stop-and-Arrest Practices. https://www.aclusocal.org/en/press-releases/breaking-court-bars-border-patrols-unlawful-stop-and-arrest-practices
    
50. United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Texas v. DHS. https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-50869-CV1.pdf
    
51. University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. Border Searches for Investigatory Purposes: Implementing a Border Nexus Standard. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1056&context=mjlr_caveat
    
52. U.S. District Court – Eastern District of California. MAGISTRATE JUDGE JENNIFER L. THURSTON (JLT) United States District Court – Eastern District of California. http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/assets/File/Standard%20Information_7_5_2017.pdf
    
53. Wikipedia. Border search exception. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_search_exception
    
54. Wikipedia. Jennifer L. Thurston. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_L._Thurston
    
55. Yahoo News. California Judge Temporarily Halts Warrantless Stops By Border Patrol. https://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-judge-temporarily-halts-warrantless-172550892.html
    
56. ACLU of Michigan. New ACLU of Michigan Report: Border Patrol Operates Far from the Border and Uses Racial Profiling and State and Local Police to Target Michigan Immigrant Communities. https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/new-aclu-michigan-report-border-patrol-operates-far-border-and-uses-racial-profiling
    
57. Governing Magazine. Texas Border Patrol Makes Arrests Pretty Far Away from the Border. https://www.governing.com/archive/why-texas-border-patrol-makes-arrests-pretty-far-away-from-the-border.html
    
58. Maine Public. Broad Jurisdiction Of U.S. Border Patrol Raises Concerns About Racial Profiling. https://www.google.com/search?q=https://www.mainepublic.org/politics/2017-10-16/broad-jurisdiction-of-u-s.-border-patrol-raises-concerns-about-racial-profiling
    
59. Immigration Litigation Tracker – Justice Action Center. Texas v. DHS (TX Razorwire) – District Court. https://litigationtracker.justiceactioncenter.org/cases/texas-v-dhs-tx-razorwire-district-court
    
60. Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW. Customs, Immigration, and Rights: Constitutional Limits on Electronic Border Searches. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3174&context=facpub