Construction Workers Triumph Over ICE Policies

A federal court in Alabama has delivered a significant ruling for the construction industry, temporarily blocking three potential Department of Homeland Security enforcement policies that seemingly permitted immigration officers to conduct warrantless raids on private construction sites, detain workers without individualized suspicion, and continue holding workers even after they produced evidence of lawful status or citizenship. The decision in Venegas v. Homan, No. 1:25-cv-00397-JB-N (S.D. Ala. Sept. 21, 2026), reinforces that Fourth Amendment protections extend to private construction work sites and the employees who work on them.

Case Background

The plaintiff, Leonardo Garcia Venegas, is a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent who builds homes in new subdivisions for major developers throughout Baldwin County, Alabama. On May 21, 2025, Venegas was at a job site when five armed individuals, three of them masked, crossed a knee-high fence and “No Trespassing” signs, bypassed non-Latino workers, and went directly for his crew, all of whom were Latino. Officers tackled Venegas’s brother without asking questions or presenting a warrant. When Venegas began recording the encounter, officers grabbed him, forced him to the ground, declared his Alabama STAR ID (a REAL ID Act-compliant license) to be fake, handcuffed him, and detained him in an unmarked car for over an hour before finally confirming his citizenship and releasing him. He was never charged with a crime.

Less than a month later, on June 12, 2025, Venegas was working alone inside a nearly completed home with walls, a roof, windows, and doors when a federal officer entered the structure and ordered him outside. Officers again questioned his REAL ID, marched him to an unmarked vehicle, and lined him up alongside other detained Latino workers (whom Venegas knew had lawful status) before later acknowledging his citizenship.

Venegas filed suit against senior federal officials, alleging that DHS had adopted three unlawful enforcement policies targeting Alabama's construction industry: (1) a Warrantless Entry Policy permitting officers to raid private construction sites without a warrant or consent; (2) a Preemptive Detention Policy allowing officers to detain workers without individualized suspicion; and (3) a Continued Detention Policy permitting officers to keep detaining workers even after they produce evidence of citizenship or lawful presence.

The Court’s Holdings

1. Fourth Amendment Protections Apply to Construction Sites

The government argued that construction sites should be treated as “open fields” where officers may freely enter without a warrant. Chief U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Beaverstock rejected this position, finding it “unconvincing” and noting that it “undermines the fact-specific considerations required by Fourth Amendment precedent.”

The court emphasized several key points:

• The sites were active private workplaces, clearly marked with “No Trespassing” signs, delineated by fencing, and occupied by working crews as opposed to abandoned or undeveloped land.

• Even if the outdoor portions of a partially constructed site could arguably qualify as an open field, the government offered nothing to support that conclusion with respect to the June encounter, which took place inside a nearly completed residential structure.

• Venegas, as an employee, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his workplace. He had authority to instruct members of the public to leave the site, and the Supreme Court has long held that employers do not “throw open” employee-only work areas to warrantless government scrutiny simply by utilizing employees. See Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 315 (1978).

The court wrote: “Here, the nature of the worksite does not open the floodgates to warrantless government intrusion and there exists no justification to enter a construction site that is not open to the public to conduct warrantless seizure.”

The court also found the warrantless entries likely violated 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(f)(2), which prohibits immigration officers from entering the non-public areas of a business to question employees about their immigration status without a warrant or consent.

2. Detaining Workers Without Individualized Suspicion Is Unlawful

The court found the Preemptive Detention Policy likely violated the Fourth Amendment and DHS regulations. Under established precedent, officers may not detain individuals to investigate their immigration status absent “reasonable suspicion” based on specific, articulable facts. See United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 881 (1975).

The court noted that video evidence did not show Venegas interfering with any arrest, and found no factual support for why officers reasonably believed he was unlawfully present. Regarding the June encounter, the government conceded it had no information whatsoever about the detention yet still claimed “reasonable suspicion” based on officer training and experience, which the court declined to accept.

3. Producing a REAL ID Should End the Encounter

On the Continued Detention Policy, the court underscored that Venegas’s Alabama STAR ID should have afforded him a presumption of lawful presence under Alabama law. Alabama issues driver’s licenses only to citizens and lawful residents, and a STAR ID can only be obtained with documents DHS itself certifies as REAL ID Act-compliant. Under the REAL ID Act, such identification “suffice[s] to establish lawful presence.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 449 n.1 (2012) (Alito, J., concurring in part).

The court found that a policy permitting officers to disregard a valid REAL ID and continue detaining workers “is likely to run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.”

Temporary Stay of Policies

The court temporarily stayed all three challenged policies under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act. This means immigration officers within the court’s jurisdiction are currently prohibited from:

1. Entering private construction sites without consent or a warrant;

2. Detaining workers without individualized suspicion that they are unlawfully present; and

3. Continuing to detain workers after they provide evidence of citizenship or lawful status.

The court also granted conditional class certification and denied the government’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s APA claims.

Key takeaways for construction companies operating residential job sites include:

• Job sites are not “open fields.”

The court affirmed that private construction sites, particularly those that are fenced, posted with signage, or involve enclosed structures, are protected workplaces, not areas subject to unlimited government access.

• Workers have Fourth Amendment rights on the job.
  

Employees on a construction site have a reasonable expectation of privacy, even if they are not site owners or managers. The ability to direct members of the public to leave, combined with legitimate presence as an employee, supports Fourth Amendment standing.

• REAL ID-compliant identification carries weight.

Officers cannot simply dismiss a valid state-issued REAL ID as “fake” and continue detaining a worker. Production of compliant identification should effectively end an investigatory stop.

• Site access controls matter

The court considered whether sites were marked, fenced, or otherwise indicated as private. Companies that maintain clear signage, fencing, and access protocols may strengthen the constitutional protections available to their workers.

Though the holdings of this case are only applicable to the Southern District of Alabama, its reasoning may be persuasive for companies facing business disruptions due to ICE investigations. Nevertheless, this decision offers a significant indication that the Fourth Amendment does not stop at the construction site gate.