Federal judge denies request to block TN Highway Patrol traffic stops conducted in tandem with ICE

A federal judge on Wednesday denied a request for a preliminary injunction that would prevent the Tennessee Highway Patrol from conducting pretextual traffic stops in tandem with federal immigration agents.

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger ruled the Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition had not made a “clear showing” it was entitled to the injunction at this stage of the litigation.

The coalition had sought the injunction as part of its ongoing challenge to the constitutionality of state troopers conducting traffic stops of motorists suspected of being noncitizens and then allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents — riding along or stationed nearby — to demand immigration papers and detain drivers.

The coalition, which filed suit in May against the Tennessee Highway Patrol, or THP, and its oversight agency, the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, is alleging the practice violates motorists’ rights under the 4th and 14th Amendments. Seven Tennessee residents joined as plaintiffs.

In a swift ruling, issued one day after a court hearing to consider arguments over the injunction, Trauger expressed deep skepticism that the immigrant coalition could ultimately demonstrate that the cooperative traffic stops violated motorists’ rights under the 4th Amendment, which protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Immigrant advocates seek immediate halt to highway patrol traffic stops conducted in tandem with ICE

Trauger wrote the immigrant advocates had “no likelihood of success” on the claim “even if the court accepts as true that the THP troopers, pursuant to a policy, are pretextually pulling over non-White motorists in Memphis for the purpose of aiding ICE agents to investigate the motorists’ immigration status.”

“Supreme Court precedent is clear: a pretextual traffic stop supported by probable cause to believe a traffic violation has occurred does not violate the Fourth Amendment, irrespective of the arresting officers’ subjective intent.”

Trauger gave more weight to the immigrant organization’s allegation that the traffic stops violated drivers’ 14th Amendment rights against discrimination, signalling the argument may have merit if supported by more evidence.

The evidence introduced thus far in the ongoing litigation “though not robust” is “sufficient to establish some likelihood of success on the merits” of the Fourteenth Amendment challenge to the traffic stop as “motivated by a discriminatory purpose” or having a “discriminatory effect,” she wrote.

Trauger noted that data and evidence submitted to support allegations of discriminatory traffic stops conducted in tandem with ICE focuses heavily on a weeklong operation in Nashville in May 2025 that resulted in scores of immigration arrests. That operation has formally ended and Trauger indicated she needed more evidence of ongoing constitutional violations in the state, specifically in Memphis where the THP is part of the Memphis Safe Task Force, a multi-agency effort including federal immigration enforcement, convened last fall by President Donald Trump. 

Trauger also ruled the Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition had a right to sue on behalf of its members, dismissing arguments by state lawyers that the organization lacked standing to pursue legal action.

The order