Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
A federal judge on Wednesday halted Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s civil investigation into a local refugee nonprofit, saying the organization’s decision to tip others off to federal law enforcement falls under protected speech.
In a 48-page order, Southern District Court Judge Tanya Pratt granted Exodus Refugee Immigration Inc.’s request for a preliminary injunction to stop Rokita’s enforcement of a civil investigative demand he issued last September. The court determined that Exodus, a nonprofit with offices in Indianapolis and Bloomington, had shown it would likely succeed in arguing that when it shared information about a planned federal immigration operation in Bloomington, it did so under constitutionally protected speech.
“Exodus’s clients come to us after fleeing war, persecution and unimaginable hardship. They trust us to help them build safe, stable lives in Indiana,” said Cole Varga, the chief executive officer of Exodus Refugee Immigration, in a press release on Wednesday. “This investigation undermined that trust. We hope that the Attorney General will now focus on serving Indiana residents instead of targeting our immigrant neighbors and their allies.”
An office spokesperson for Rokita said the office is “evaluating the ruling and considering what next steps may be appropriate.”
In September 2025, Rokita issued the civil investigative demand, essentially a civil subpoena, to Exodus that demanded information from the organization about “possible interference with federal immigration activities” in Monroe County.
According to court documents, in April 2025, Exodus received a tip about a potential U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, operation in Bloomington. An Exodus employee called 22 other social organizations to tell them about the operation. Exodus also closed its local office for three days to “prevent panic and limit confrontations by ICE.”
Exodus told a few clients who regularly visited the office and had legal status about the office’s closure; however, the organization did not disclose to any clients why it closed the office, according to court documents.
The next month, an ICE agent reached out to an attorney in Rokita’s office, saying the Bloomington operation did not yield as many arrests as the agency hoped for. According to the court documents, the agent believed the operation was unsuccessful because organizations, including Exodus, had alerted the community to ICE’s presence. The agent also expressed ICE’s belief that Exodus’s communications may indicate that the organization employs or provides services to “illegal aliens.”
The Sep. 5, 2025, civil investigative demand issued to Exodus stated that the Attorney General’s Office had reasonable cause to believe the organization may have information relevant to an “investigation being conducted” concerning labor trafficking, indecent nuisance, false claims and abuse of authority as a nonprofit. The demand did not explain the reasonable cause authorizing its being issued, according to the court.
Rokita gave Exodus until Sep. 29, 2025, to respond to the demand, but the organization did not. Instead, Exodus filed its federal lawsuit against Rokita and filed a motion for preliminary injunction.
Exodus argued that its decision to notify other organizations and select clients about the planned ICE operation was considered protected free speech. The court agreed.
“There is no evidence that this speech did, or attempted to, conceal or aid anyone subject to arrest from evading law enforcement,” Pratt wrote in Wednesday’s order. “The evidence in the record shows that Exodus spread this information to mitigate panic and avoid unnecessary disruption to its operations.”
A broader picture
Over the last year, Rokita has issued civil inveigative demands to several businesses, nonprofit organizations and local government agencies in connection with inquiries into immigration matters.
One organization, the Haitian Center of Evansville, successfully challenged Rokita’s demands in court, which a unanimous three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals last week affirmed. Writing for the court, Appeals Judge Nancy Vaidik said Rokita failed to show reasonable cause that the Haitian Center had relevant information about labor trafficking and that he was “at most trawling for evidence of wrongdoing.”
Following the appellate decision, a Rokita spokesperson told The Indiana Lawyer last week the Attorney General’s Office was evaluating the court’s decision and was considering “what next steps in these investigations may be appropriate.”
Following the district court’s ruling on Wednesday, Stevie Pactor, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, said in a press release that the ACLU looks forward to seeking final judgment against Rokita’s actions.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.