In a decisive ruling, a federal judge has temporarily prohibited federal agents from using racial profiling during immigration arrests in Southern California, a practice that advocates claim has created widespread fear among immigrants and negatively impacted the local economy. In her ruling, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, appointed by President Biden, noted significant evidence that immigration agents were using race, language, and occupation to form ‘reasonable suspicion’ for detaining individuals, contravening the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The recent decision has been celebrated by immigrant rights groups and California Democrats, who have been engaged in a contentious struggle with the Trump administration over a series of aggressive immigration sweeps in immigrant-dense communities throughout Southern California.
If enforced, Judge Frimpong’s order would halt immigration agents from conducting operations in areas like Home Depots and car washes, where they have allegedly singled out brown-skinned individuals and Spanish-speaking workers under the pretext of enforcing immigration laws.
“Justice prevailed today,” California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed on X, lauding the ruling.
“The court’s decision puts a temporary stop to federal immigration officials violating people’s rights and racial profiling,” he wrote. “California stands with the law and the Constitution — and I call on the Trump Administration to do the same.”
The judge’s orders apply specifically to regions including Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties.
In response, the White House declared its intent to appeal, arguing that no federal judge possesses the authority to dictate immigration policy, which they claim is a prerogative of Congress and the President.
“No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy – that authority rests with Congress and the President,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, stated.
She stressed that enforcement operations require planning and execution skills that are “far beyond the purview or jurisdiction of any judge,” adding that they anticipate this “gross overstep of judicial authority” to be corrected on appeal.
In her assessment, Judge Frimpong highlighted that the evidence presented indicated federal agents were indeed using race, language, the nature of a person’s work, and their location to form the basis for reasonable suspicion. She emphasized that such reliance on these factors fails to conform to constitutional requirements.
“What the federal government would have this Court believe… is that none of this is actually happening,” Frimpong stated.
Consequently, she mandated that federal agents refrain from using these factors in establishing reasonable suspicion necessary for detaining individuals. Furthermore, she ordered that all detainees at the downtown facility known as B-18 must have 24-hour access to legal counsel and a confidential phone line.
U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli, responding to the ruling, criticized it vehemently on X.
“We strongly disagree with the allegations in the lawsuit and maintain that our agents have never detained individuals without proper legal justification,” he stated.
He reiterated that federal agents would continue to enforce laws in line with the U.S. Constitution.
This ruling comes at a heightened moment of tension, as reports surfaced regarding one of the largest work-site immigration raids since the commencement of recent crackdowns.
In a recent operation, approximately 200 suspected undocumented immigrants were arrested at two cannabis facilities, leading to confrontations between law enforcement and numerous protesters in Ventura County.
Amidst this tumult, a man suffered serious injuries after falling from a greenhouse roof during the raid, while the FBI is currently investigating allegations of shots fired at federal agents during the ensuing protest.
Although the court’s order is temporary, the coalition representing the plaintiffs intends to pursue a preliminary injunction that would secure longer-lasting protection against alleged abusive practices.
The judge has yet to rule on a motion from the city and county of Los Angeles, along with seven other municipalities, seeking to join the lawsuit.
“Los Angeles has been under assault by the Trump Administration as masked men grab people off the street, chase working people through parking lots, and march through children’s summer camps,” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass stated following the ruling.
“We went to court against the administration because we will never accept these outrageous and un-American acts as normal.”
A coalition including the ACLU, Public Counsel, and several private attorneys filed the lawsuit on behalf of various immigrant rights groups, detailing instances where individuals were detained unlawfully.
The plaintiffs recounted incidents of being confronted at bus stops and other public spaces, often without proper identification or legal justification from federal agents, who are alleged to have engaged with individuals simply based on their appearance or the nature of their work.
“I think it’s the most important decision in the history of the country about limitations on what immigration authorities can do when they carry out operations,” remarked Mark Rosenbaum, a lawyer with Public Counsel, emphasizing the significance of the ruling.
“It means that they can’t racially profile, they can’t treat car wash workers and nannies as illegally in the country just because of who they are.
It means that those whom they sweep into detention have to have access to attorneys right away. And it means that the Constitution is not a dirty word. It’s brought the rule of law back to Los Angeles.”
The plaintiffs contended in their complaint that immigration agents unjustly targeted individuals of color in various settings, intensifying fears within communities based on racial profiling.
They claimed that agents failed to identify themselves as required by federal law and made arrests without lawful warrants.
The conditions faced by those in detention at the B-18 facility were also called into question, characterizing them as “deplorable” due to lack of access to legal assistance and inadequate provisions for food and water.
Judge Frimpong concurred with these assertions, suggesting that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail at trial.
According to data from the Department of Homeland Security, since June 6, nearly 2,800 individuals have been arrested as part of these immigration enforcement actions.
Notably, an analysis revealed that a significant percentage of those arrested during a short period had no prior criminal convictions.
The intense raids have disrupted daily life in regions of Los Angeles where large immigrant populations reside and work.
Tom Homan, a former advisor to President Trump on border policy, criticized the judge’s tentative ruling before it was finalized, warning that it would cripple ongoing operations if upheld.
“If the judge makes a decision against what the officers are trained, against what the law is based upon,” Homan stated, it would “shut down operations.”
He reiterated the argument made by government attorneys that agents could rely on tangible characteristics, including location and occupation, when determining whether to approach and question an individual.
“ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them,” he explained.
He asserted that they merely require a consideration of the totality of circumstances to justify their actions.
Homan claimed agents undergo regular training to ensure their understanding of the Fourth Amendment rights.
During a protracted hearing, Justice Department attorney Sean Skedzielewski requested a $30 million bond in anticipation of compliance with any eventual ruling, arguing that proper training would be necessary for agents to adhere to the newly imposed restrictions.
However, Frimpong countered by asserting that her restraining order did not necessitate new training, only adherence to existing laws.
Throughout the hearing, Frimpong expressed skepticism over the government’s defenses, particularly around the the declarations provided by senior officials who aided in directing the raids.
She noted that their testimonies were “very general” and failed to engage with the robust evidence presented by the plaintiffs.
Frimpong highlighted the absence of concrete documentation detailing how suspects were identified and emphasizing the lack of reporting typically present in lawful arrests.
“There doesn’t seem to be anything like that here,” she remarked, indicating difficulty in validating the government’s claim of having conducted operations reliably based on lawful intelligence.
In response, Skedzielewski maintained that while there were numerous instances of stops, he could not find evidence demonstrating that agents acted outside legal boundaries.
He asserted that the agents’ actions were conducted with proper authority.
Attorneys representing the ACLU argued that solely relying on race and location as a basis for stops is not only improper but also unconstitutional.
Mohammad Tajsar from the ACLU described specific incidents where individuals, such as plaintiff Brian Gavidia, were stopped and detained unjustly based on the color of their skin and their status as Latino workers in predominantly Latino neighborhoods.
“Because of this fundamental misunderstanding of the law from the government, we have seen so many unconstitutional and unlawful arrests,” Tajsar pointedly remarked.
He challenged the government’s assertion of needing more time, arguing that they already possessed adequate evidence to formulate an informed response.
In court filings, the city and county sought to join the lawsuit, contending that the raids were politically motivated as retaliation against areas that oppose President Trump’s policies.
They referenced the President’s social media posts calling for enhanced deportation efforts against cities considered strongholds of Democratic power.
Late Friday evening, Stephen Miller, Deputy Chief of Staff to Trump and a prominent figure in shaping the administration’s stringent immigration policy, responded angrily to the ruling on social media.
“A communist judge in LA has ordered ICE to report directly to her and radical left NGOs — not the president,” Miller wrote.
He characterized the ruling as “another act of insurrection against the United States and its sovereign people.”
image source from：latimes
