A federal judge heard testimony on Thursday from multiple noncitizens who were arrested by immigration officers in Colorado this year, and arguments from their attorneys that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is violating the legal standard for conducting warrantless arrests.

The ACLU of Colorado and other law firms have asked U.S. District Court Senior Judge R. Brooke Jackson to issue a preliminary injunction holding ICE to the requirement in federal law that warrantless arrests only occur when officers have probable cause to believe someone is in the country illegally and they are a flight risk.

“Masked, militarized ICE agents with flak jackets and long rifles are terrorizing neighborhoods across Colorado, ignoring their duty to obtain warrants so they can meet arbitrary government quotas,” argued plaintiffs’ attorney Kenzo Kawanabe.

Jackson, a Barack Obama appointee, had several pointed questions for each side at the outset of the hearing. He wondered whether the named plaintiffs had standing to pursue the case as a proposed class action, as they had already been arrested, released and, in the government’s view, were unlikely to be arrested again.

“Every non-documented, non-immigrant-status individual — and you say there are over 100,000 of them in Colorado — every one of those people is subject to arrest. But does ‘subject to arrest’ give you legal standing?” Jackson asked.

At the same time, Jackson repeatedly pressed the government about an issue raised during a virtual conference on Oct. 24. At the time, the government informed Jackson that ICE’s top legal officer had advised all ICE employees of the need to adhere to the requirements for warrantless arrest. The message was prompted by an Illinois judge’s order from earlier in the month in a separate Chicago-area case.

Jackson questioned last week why the government would not agree to a preliminary injunction that reflects ICE’s own understanding and is judicially enforceable. He reiterated his concern at the hearing.

“You say, ‘This is our policy. This is what we will do. We stand by this.’ The plaintiffs said, ‘That’s all we’re asking for.’ All you have to do is say, ‘We’ll stipulate to a court order that says we’ll do (that),” Jackson said. “And the case is done. Why won’t you do that?”

“The defendants do not think they have done anything wrong that they could be subject to an injunction,” responded Assistant U.S. Attorney Nick Deuschle.

The government does not have to admit that in order to reach a settlement, interjected Jackson. Moreover, if ICE arrested a person unlawfully and released them under supervision, as they did with the plaintiffs, a litigant could theoretically never bring a lawsuit to block future such arrests.

“How can these people ever bring a case?” he wondered. “What kind of a country is it if people can’t bring before a court their grievance if ICE people are just ignoring these policies? There’s gotta be something that a court can do about it.”

Although the hearing was not focused on whether Jackson should green-light the litigation as a class action, he observed the government may be forcing him to do so with its argument that he lacks authority to issue a statewide injunction against ICE.

“I’m starting to think it is necessary,” he said.

For the remainder of the hearing, Jackson heard from the four named plaintiffs who were each arrested without a warrant this year, seemingly without any determination that they were a likely flight risk.

The arrest of Caroline Dias Goncalves drew significant attention earlier this year, after the Utah college student was pulled over in Mesa County for a traffic violation. A sheriff’s deputy alerted immigration authorities and let her go, only for agents to arrest her down the road. Attorney General Phil Weiser subsequently sued the deputy for allegedly violating state law.

Dias Goncalves, who had a pending asylum application at the time of her arrest, said her 15 days in detention were “suffocating,” and she lost one of her jobs and her housing after her arrest. Immigration officers never asked about the factors that would make her a flight risk prior to taking her into custody.

Refugio Ramirez Ovando, who lives in Grand Junction, testified that immigration officers told him they were actually looking for someone else when they arrested and detained him for 100 days. They similarly never inquired into the possibility he was a flight risk before the arrest.

Asked about the effect his arrest had on his family, Ramirez Ovando leaned back, looked at the ceiling, wiped his face with a tissue and could not speak for 30 seconds. Jackson called for a brief recess.

“This did affect my family, particularly my daughter. And this is why I broke down,” said Ramirez Ovando afterward through an interpreter.

An immigration judge subsequently granted him permanent residency, but the government has not provided him documentation.

“After you leave this courtroom today,” asked attorney Hans Meyer, “do you have a fear you could be stopped and arrested without a warrant by ICE?”

“Yes, because I have the same evidence that they asked me for when they arrested me the first time, and that’s all I have,” responded Ramirez Ovando.

The plaintiffs also called as a witness Robert Guadian, who led the Denver ICE field office from January until a few days ago, when he was one of several regional leaders removed from their roles and reassigned.

Guadian described immigration arrests as either “targeted” or “collateral.” The targeted actions go after “the worst of the worst people” and agents have knowledge of where they are, he said, whereas collateral arrests can happen without warrants when agents encounter someone in the field who meets the criteria.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers played multiple clips of Guadian giving TV interviews about ICE’s targeted operations. Guadian told reporters that if targets “have people who are with them also illegally present, they will be arrested as well.”

“It wouldn’t have been hard, though, to say, ‘We arrest people who are likely to flee,'” said attorney Sean Grimsley.

“The assumption is that people trust law enforcement,” Guadian responded. “And when federal officers, local, county, state officers make arrests, they don’t need qualifying statements that we’re making lawful arrests.”

“But that’s what this whole case is about, right? Whether that’s true and that trust is warranted,” said Grimsley.

Finally, Jackson heard testimony from immigration attorney Arturo Vazquez. He described that since the summer, when White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller asserted there would be a quota of 3,000 immigration arrests per day, he has seen an unprecedented number of people in detention who fit the profile of the plaintiffs. Specifically, people who are arrested without a warrant and without an individualized determination of their status and flight risk.

The arrests also commonly accompany traffic stops, where people show officers Colorado-issued driver licenses that are intended for noncitizens.

The hearing will continue on Friday.

The case is Ramirez Ovando et al. v. Noem et al.