What remedies or legal challenges have noncitizens used successfully to contest CBP biometric collection or misuse?

1. FOIA and transparency suits: forcing agencies to disclose how biometrics are used

One clear, repeatedly used remedy has been litigation under the Freedom of Information Act to pry open CBP and ICE records about who gets biometric data and how it’s shared. Access Now and the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic sued because FOIA requests about sharing of noncitizen biometric and biographic data with Latin American governments went unanswered; plaintiffs targeted both ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations and CBP’s CBP One app to learn what data flows existed and on what legal basis ^{[1] [2]}. Those suits aim not to stop collection immediately but to create a factual record that can support later legal challenges or public pressure ^[1].

2. Challenging operational policies via administrative and civil claims

Nonprofits and immigration organizations have filed class actions and administrative complaints challenging operational uses of biometric systems — for example, alleging that CBP One’s appointment requirement and data collection undermine asylum seekers’ access to protection and make migrants vulnerable to surveillance ^[5]. These suits frame biometrics as not only a privacy problem but a procedural and due‑process barrier for vulnerable populations, seeking injunctions or policy changes rather than only money damages ^[5].

3. Using state biometric privacy litigation as a model — success in private suits, limited direct government analogues

Civil plaintiffs have seen major wins against private companies under state biometric laws like Illinois’s BIPA, including large settlements that demonstrate legal leverage when agencies or contractors misuse biometric data ^{[3] [4]}. While BIPA and similar statutes target private actors (and some state laws do not directly bind federal agencies), advocates point to these outcomes as persuasive examples for how statutory obligations, damages and disclosure can restrain misuse and spur reforms in practice and contracting ^{[3] [6]}.

4. Data‑security and contractor breach litigation: proving misuse through audits and OIG reports

Independent reviews and inspector‑general audits have been crucial evidence in litigation. DHS OIG reports about a 2019 incident where a subcontractor improperly accessed CBP biometric pilot data have underpinned transparency demands and claims about inadequate safeguards that plaintiffs use to argue imminent risk of harm from government programs ^[7]. Such findings bolster requests for injunctive relief or stricter privacy protections in future rollouts ^[7].

5. Legal theories invoked: FOIA, due process, Fourth Amendment and privacy/statutory claims

Reported challenges invoke several theories: FOIA to obtain records ^[1], due‑process claims when biometric systems intersect with asylum or entry procedures ^[5], and constitutional Fourth Amendment questions about searches and seizures—commentators predict such arguments will appear in litigation against the new CBP rule ^[8]. Available reporting documents FOIA and due‑process suits directly; constitutional litigation is anticipated in commentary and legal forecasts ^{[1] [8]}.

6. Limits and countervailing realities: federal immunity and different legal avenues

Federal agencies enjoy legal protections that make private‑law analogues imperfect: state biometric statutes that produced big settlements against companies do not bind federal agencies the same way ^[3]. The injunctive and disclosure strategies used so far reflect that reality — FOIA suits and OIG findings focus on transparency and procedural reform, while operational stops often rely on court orders tied to concrete statutory or constitutional violations ^{[1] [7]}.

7. Practical outcomes so far and likely next steps

So far, the most concrete, reported outcomes are compelled disclosures and ongoing litigation rather than wholesale rollback of biometric programs: FOIA suits remain active; advocacy groups are using litigation to secure information that could feed future constitutional or statutory challenges ^{[1] [2]}. Given DHS’s finalized rule expanding biometric collection and retention (effective Dec. 26, 2025), litigation strategies will likely multiply — FOIA to document sharing, administrative challenges to program rules, and potential constitutional claims about searches or due process — with private‑sector BIPA litigation informing tactics and public pressure ^{[9] [3]}.

Limitations: reporting in the supplied sources documents FOIA suits, advocacy litigation and private BIPA actions but does not catalog every case nor confirm successful constitutional rulings specifically blocking CBP biometric collection; available sources do not mention a final court decision that has barred nationwide CBP biometric entry/exit collection ^{[1] [3]}.