MJMA is an Oregon farmworker. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents arrested her during a series of raids in Woodburn on October 30, 2025. She sued asserting her Constitutional rights. As part of her case, the DHS has been forced to turn over documents, testify under oath at a hearing, and answer questions under cross-examination. MJMA’s case is still pending and may uncover more information..
Based on the public record of MJMA’s hearing, this is what we have learned about DHS’s enforcement actions in Oregon.
Operation Black Rose. In sworn testimony, several agents revealed that in October 2025, DHS launched Operation Black Rose. The extent of the operation is uncertain. It is ongoing as of this post. From what we understand, DHS agents–ICE and Border Patrol–from around the country are brought to Oregon for deployments lasting several weeks. Agents from Florida, Arizona, Denver, Iowa, and Idaho, among other locations, have been brought to Oregon. During the operation, the agents deploy throughout predesignated areas using advanced surveillance technologies, illegal stops, and violent encounters. The operation is also known as Operation Fortifying the Border, Operation Portland Safe and Operation Portland Sweep.
Since Operation Black Rose started, DHS detentions have soared. According to data analyzed by Law Lab, arrests in October rose 1500% from the prior month, and 7900% over the prior year.
Targeting Geographic Locations. Agents explained that DHS creates “target packages.” In traditional policing, target packages identify an individual who is the target for the enforcement operation. It could contain a “package” of data, such as the target’s name, photograph, and other characteristics. One agent described these target packages as “baseball cards.” But in Operation Black Rose, the target development also includes targeting areas. For the Woodburn detentions, the agent explained that targets could be license plates or a location.
From M-J-M-A’s hearing:
THE COURT: And that target had a name? Was it an actual identified individual?
THE WITNESS: I don't remember.
THE COURT: But was it -- was it a name of -- of a person?
THE WITNESS: I -- possibly. I --
THE COURT: How else is a target identified, if not by name?
THE WITNESS: Sometimes if it's -- if they give us a name, we'll go to that location, or they would want us out with -- running plates.
THE COURT: Okay. And do you remember if your target focus was a [license] plate number?
THE WITNESS: I -- it was an area.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. So -- fascinating. Oftentimes, maybe in the context of how I've been thinking about the evidence, targets have typically been identified people. But they -- a target could be plates or -- and targets could be locations?
THE WITNESS: Correct[.]
Target Development & Staging. Agents explained that there were multiple arrest teams on the day of the raid. Arrest Team 7 was the team that arrested M-J-M-A. There were 7 to 12 agents on the team that arrested M-J-M-A-. The arrest team agents, many of whom were flown in from outside Oregon and staying at hotels in the area, were given a location to stage the raid. Agents are staged in different vehicles and joined a single conference call and stayed on during the call. In M-J-M-A’s case, at least 2 agents staked out the “target rich” apartment complex. “Target rich” was explained to mean that according to DHS surveillance, the location was one that had numerous matches for individuals with an “immigration nexus.” An agent testified about “ELITE”, a new DHS application that was described as being similar to Google maps. ELITE shows target-rich locations or locations where, based on DHS data, individuals with an “immigration nexus” are likely to live, work, or congregate.
For the raid in which M-J-M-A- was swept up, the DHS agents started at an apartment complex in Woodburn. The agents then conducted “live targeting” by running license plates through DHS databases on vehicles in plain view parked at the apartment complex or passing by the agents. For this case, an agent testified that he had a page and a half of target photos with names and other information. The agent also testified that he destroyed the list after M-J-M-A- filed her lawsuit.
Live Targeting. An agent testified that DHS was engaged in “live targeting” on October 30. This appears to be a common approach. In live targeting, agents use prior surveillance identifying “target rich” locations and then, on the day of the deployment, initiate an electronic dragnet by running license plates through a database system that compares the car registration against DHS immigration databases. If a positive match happens, which could occur within minutes or less, DHS will stop the vehicle. DHS views worker transport vans, common in agricultural areas of the Willamette Valley and throughout Oregon, as high value stops.
Arbitrary Quotas. For the Operation Black Rose arrest teams, each team had a quota of 8 arrests per day. At least 7 arrest teams deployedthat day, suggesting that DHS has a quota of 50 daily arrests in Oregon
Arrest First, Ask Questions Later/Warrantless Arrests. In Operation Black Rose, like other DHS enforcement actions in Chicago, Washington D.C., and Los Angeles, DHS agents are making most of the arrests without a warrant. This appears to be a violation of the law.
DHS agents are authorized by law to make arrests when they have a warrant. The law only requires an administrative warrant, which means the warrants are easy to obtain because they are issued within the agency itself. Nevertheless, the warrant requirement serves an important function. Generally this means DHS agents must plan their arrests in advance because they must have specific information about a target (a person) they believe is in the United States in violation of immigration law.
DHS may conduct a warrantless arrest only with probable cause to believe that a person is in the U.S. in violation of immigration law and that the person will escape in the time it takes to obtain a warrant. Courts have interpreted the double-probable cause requirement to mean that warrantless arrests are the exception to the rule. Before making an arrest, agents must also take into account the person’s family and community ties, such as whether they have a stable residence, employment, and family connections, and length of residence in the United States, or whether an individual has attempted to escape before or has absconded before. If an individual has family and community ties and has not attempted escape before, then the agent must be able to articulate specific circumstances why the person would escape before a warrant could be obtained.
Surveillance Patterns. Not described in MJMA’s case, but based on Law Lab’s understanding of patterns of reporting, DHS agents appear to conduct surveillance for several days to develop “target rich” locations and then execute a raid. Surveillance occurs using license plate readers, vehicle registrations, drones, and, we assume, comparing the information to DHS databases, to identify targets. The pattern appears to be 1-2 days of surveillance, followed by a raid on the third or fourth day
