Venegas v. Homan, No. 1:25-cv-00397-JB-N (S.D. Ala. Sept. 21, 2026).
Facts: Leonardo Garcia Venegas, a U.S. citizen employed in residential construction in Alabama, filed a lawsuit challenging federal immigration enforcement practices after officers detained him during raids at construction sites. During two separate incidents in 2025, immigration officers entered private construction sites without warrants and detained Venegas despite his repeated statements that he was a U.S. citizen. On both occasions, he presented an Alabama REAL ID, but officers continued holding him while attempting to verify his immigration status.
Venegas challenged three Department of Homeland Security (DHS) practices: entering private construction sites without warrants or consent, detaining workers without individualized suspicion of unlawful immigration status, and continuing detention after workers presented evidence of citizenship or lawful presence.
Holding: On September 21, 2026, Chief U.S. District Judge Jeffrey U. Beaverstock of the Southern District of Alabama ruled that Venegas was likely to succeed in challenging the three practices under the Fourth Amendment and applicable federal regulations.
The court temporarily stayed the challenged DHS policies, finding that:
- Immigration officers generally cannot enter nonpublic areas of private construction sites without a warrant, consent, or another recognized legal justification.
- Officers cannot detain construction workers solely based on generalized assumptions about immigration status without reasonable suspicion specific to the individual.
- Officers cannot continue detaining workers under the challenged policy after they provide sufficient evidence of citizenship or lawful presence.
The court issued temporary relief rather than a final determination on the merits. The decision does not prohibit lawful immigration enforcement at construction sites.
👉 Takeaway: The decision reinforces that construction sites are not automatically open to warrantless immigration enforcement and that workers retain constitutional protections during immigration investigations. Contractors should establish procedures for responding to immigration agents, including designating a company representative, identifying public and nonpublic work areas, and verifying whether officers have a judicial warrant or another lawful basis for entry.
Contractors should also train supervisors to document enforcement encounters, avoid obstructing lawful investigations, and immediately contact legal counsel when questions arise regarding access to private property or employee detention.
Although the ruling remains preliminary and does not eliminate immigration enforcement authority, it provides important guidance concerning the constitutional limits of workplace raids and the rights of construction employers and their employees.
