The Trump administration has officially announced its intention to appeal a Los Angeles federal judge’s ruling that restricts federal agents’ authority to detain individuals without reasonable suspicion, particularly based on race, ethnicity, or occupation.
On Sunday, the federal government filed a formal notice of appeal with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals concerning U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s decision issued on Friday.
Details regarding when the appeal will be filed or whether the 9th Circuit will hear the case remain uncertain.
White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson addressed the ruling via email to City News Service, stating, “No federal judge has the authority to dictate immigration policy; that authority rests with Congress and the president.”
Jackson elaborated that enforcement operations necessitate careful planning and execution, which she argues extend beyond the jurisdiction of any judge.
“We expect this gross overstep of judicial authority to be corrected on appeal,” she added.
Frimpong’s comprehensive 52-page ruling prohibits immigration agencies from initiating detentive stops within this district unless agents possess reasonable suspicion that the individual is violating U.S. immigration law.
The order explicitly forbids immigration agents from relying solely on characteristics such as race or ethnicity, accents, and presence at locations like bus stops, day laborer sites, car washes, or agricultural sites to justify detaining individuals.
In a separate ruling, Frimpong mandated that immigration agencies must guarantee detainees access to attorneys or legal representatives every day of the week. Furthermore, detainees must have access to confidential telephone calls with attorneys, which are to remain unmonitored and free of charge.
Frimpong indicated in her ruling that federal authorities have been engaging in “roving patrols” without reasonable suspicion during their immigration enforcement operations in the Los Angeles area.
She noted that her restraining orders should not impede immigration authorities’ operational capabilities, stating, “requiring law enforcement to comply with the Constitution does not prevent law enforcement from enforcing the law.”
“Complying with the law does not impose harm,” the judge wrote.
White House border czar Tom Homan voiced criticism of Frimpong’s order during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.”
“We’re going to litigate that order, because I think the order’s wrong,” Homan asserted. He contended that officers do not require probable cause but only need reasonable suspicion to briefly detain and question individuals.
“Unless she’s in the officer’s mind, I don’t know how she could make that decision that, well, they’re not using reasonable suspicion. How does she know that?” Homan questioned, emphasizing that officers are trained to articulate facts that establish reasonable suspicion before detaining someone.
“Physical description can’t be the sole factor to give you reasonable suspicion,” he acknowledged, but he pointed out that physical appearance, combined with other factors, could generate reasonable suspicion, citing an example of an individual with an identifiable MS-13 tattoo.
Homan underscored that every ICE officer receives Fourth Amendment training biannually, reinforcing the legal parameters for arrest, detention, and questioning.
California Senator Alex Padilla disagreed with Homan’s perspective during the same program, insisting that detention practices are indeed influenced by appearance, accents, and occupations.
“The evidence is out there,” Padilla remarked.
Following Fridays’s ruling, U.S. Attorney for Los Angeles Bill Essayli emphasized that the enforcement agencies operate within legal bounds.
“We strongly disagree with the allegations in the lawsuit and maintain that our agents have never detained individuals without proper legal justification,” Essayli commented, asserting that federal agents will continue to enforce immigration law in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a robust response on social media, asserting that “a district judge is undermining the will of the American people.” The statement further claimed, “America’s brave men and women are removing murderers, MS-13 gang members, pedophiles, rapists — truly the worst of the worst from Golden State communities. LAW AND ORDER WILL PREVAIL!”
The lawsuit in question, filed on July 2 in Los Angeles federal court, involved Public Counsel, the American Civil Liberties Union, and various attorneys representing Southern Californian residents and workers. It was launched on behalf of individuals who alleged unlawful stops and detentions by federal agents targeting immigrant labor locations.
The suit accused immigration officials of conducting “roving patrols” and detaining people without appropriate proof of legal residency in the country.
It detailed accusations against federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, for allegedly engaging in unconstitutional immigration enforcement practices that discriminated based on perceived race and ethnicity, effectively denying detainees necessary legal protections.
The lawsuit described actions by DHS as akin to “abducting and disappearing” community members using illegal detention tactics. Detainees were reportedly held under harsh conditions without access to attorneys.
The case highlights the experiences of two main plaintiffs who recounted being arrested by armed, masked agents while simply waiting at a bus stop.
On Monday, attorneys for several cities, including Los Angeles and Montebello, filed a motion with Frimpong, seeking to join the case in support of the plaintiffs. They requested that a hearing on their motion be scheduled for Friday.
Plaintiffs’ attorney Mark Rosenbaum of Public Counsel remarked on the unprecedented nature of these events in American history, especially referencing the immigration raids that have triggered panic within Latino communities in recent weeks.
In light of Friday’s ruling, Rosenbaum declared it “historic,” citing the court’s clear stance against DHS’s unlawful practices, particularly regarding the denial of attorney access to community workers in distressing conditions.
“The question now for our federal government is whether it is prepared to conduct its operations under the rule of law. To date, the answer has been no,” he said.
During a Thursday court hearing, government attorney Sean Skedzielewski denied that agents were conducting illegal detentions of immigrants, asserting that DHS’s enforcement actions are appropriately based on evidence and the “totality of the circumstances.”
However, Frimpong, a Biden appointee, expressed skepticism toward the government’s arguments, indicating that the legal rationale presented was not sufficiently compelling.
Tajsar, another attorney for the plaintiffs, made a point that immigration stops predominantly target individuals who appear Latino.
He claimed, “It’s happening with people who appear Latino,” and criticized the practice of roving agents who detain individuals before asking questions.
When questioned by the judge about the use of masks by agents, Skedzielewski explained that this measure was taken to prevent identification leaks.
Amid the ongoing discussions, federal officials maintained calls for undocumented immigrants to consider self-deportation through the use of the CBP Home app and to investigate legal immigration options at cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors.
image source from：audacy
