Courts are increasingly addressing putative class actions aimed at curbing allegedly illegal government conduct. An Oregon federal court recently certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class action in a challenge to alleged ICE warrantless arrest practices, holding that plaintiffs may proceed on behalf of people arrested, or at risk of arrest, without a warrant and without pre-arrest individualized probable-cause assessments. See M-J-M-A- et al. v. Lyons et al., No. 6:25-CV-02011-MTK, 2026 WL 1815866 (D. Or. June 24, 2026).
The M-J-M-A- plaintiffs allege that federal immigration officials arrested them without a warrant, without probable cause that they had committed an immigration violation, and without probable cause that they were likely to flee before a warrant could be obtained. The court granted certification of a “Warrantless Arrest Class” and an “Unassessed Escape Risk Subclass,” each focused on whether ICE made the individualized assessments required before conducting warrantless immigration arrests.
The court grounded its certification decision in Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement. Rule 23(a)(2) requires at least one common question capable of class-wide resolution, and the court emphasized that the plaintiffs were not merely aggregating individualized arrest disputes but challenging an alleged policy and practice of warrantless arrests without required probable-cause determinations. The court identified multiple common legal questions, including whether defendants had a policy or practice of making warrantless arrests without individualized escape-risk determinations. The court also found numerosity because ICE had arrested hundreds of Oregonians and was targeting thousands more, typicality because the named plaintiffs challenged the same alleged policy and sought the same relief as absent class members, and adequacy because the named plaintiffs and counsel had no identified conflicts and would vigorously represent the class. Finally, the court found that Rule 23(b)(2) was satisfied because Defendants’ policy and practice of conducting unlawful warrantless arrests applied to all class members who have been or will be arrested pursuant to that policy, making final injunctive relief appropriate as to the class as a whole.
The ruling shows how Rule 23(b)(2) can function as the procedural vehicle for broad prospective relief against allegedly unlawful government practices. That point has become especially important after the Supreme Court’s decision limiting universal injunctions, which directed attention back to class certification as a pathway for broader relief. The Oregon decision is an early illustration of that shift: as universal injunctions recede, class actions—particularly Rule 23(b)(2) class actions seeking injunctive or declaratory relief—are likely to become an increasingly important tool in challenges to federal enforcement policies.