Venegas v. Homan

Judge Beaverstock did not hand Venegas the whole preliminary injunction; he granted it only to the extent of temporarily staying three DHS construction-site policies under APA §705 and denied the rest. So: interim relief, and every merits point is 'likely,' not 'holds. The ruling records two encounters, not three: May 21—tackled, handcuffed, no charge—and June 12 in Fairhope, inside a nearly finished house, twenty to thirty minutes, also no charge. Both times, no charge. The three policies: warrantless entry onto private sites, preemptive detention on a demographic profile, and continued detention after a STAR ID was shown. the government's never-need-a-warrant open-fields argument, 'open fields,' undermines its claim it has no entry policy at all. The court found a privacy interest in the worksite, watched the video and saw no reasonable suspicion — 'not inclined to take the and held that continued detention after a REAL ID-compliant license is likely a Fourth Amendment problem. Kavanaugh's Vasquez Perdomo concurrence actually bolsters the plaintiff here. and this is where the court chose a Section 705 stay, which is not party-restricted, over an injunction. It stays the policies themselves: no geographic carve-out, no county list, no class definition. Reason's report card: B. Right on the stay-versus-injunction point and the footnote, but it invented a geographic limit, a third detention, a class action, and a citizenship requirement.