Rivera-Garcia v. Neely et al

On February 26, 2025, CBP officers patrolling near McAllen, Texas, stopped a vehicle carrying Honduran asylum seeker Maria Rivera-Garcia and her 8-year-old son. Alleging racial profiling, the officers forcibly removed them, threw Rivera-Garcia to the ground, and placed her in tight restraints, causing severe shoulder and back injuries. The son was briefly separated and traumatized. The plaintiffs filed a federal civil rights lawsuit claiming the agent, Brian Neely, and others used excessive force, performed an unlawful seizure without reasonable suspicion, and violated their Fifth Amendment due process rights. The suit seeks compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive relief against the CBP for its border-wide practices. The incident spotlights the agency’s expanded use-of-force protocols within the 100-mile border zone.

On September 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling that the excessive force, unreasonable seizure, and parental right-to-association claims could proceed. The court held that a reasonable jury could find the force disproportionate and that binding precedent put the unlawfulness of the prolonged restraint beyond debate, defeating qualified immunity at the pleading stage. Discovery is ongoing, and a trial date is expected in late 2026.

The central dispute is whether CBP officers violated clearly established constitutional rights by subjecting an asylum-seeking family to excessive force and an investigatory stop based solely on ethnic appearance, and whether the defendant officer is entitled to qualified immunity given the alleged egregiousness of the conduct and the vulnerability of child plaintiffs.

The case intensified national scrutiny on CBP accountability, triggering renewed congressional hearings on border enforcement standards. Immigrant rights organizations used the litigation to advocate for mandatory body-worn cameras and de-escalation training, while border-security proponents defended officer discretion. The incident became a flashpoint in the 2026 midterm election debates over immigration policy, contributing to pilot programs for independent review panels within the Department of Homeland Security.