The Trump administration has filed an urgent appeal with a higher court to allow immigration agents to continue their unrestrained raids across Southern California, labeling a recent federal judge’s ruling as a restrictive “straitjacket” on their operations.
This appeal follows a ruling made by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, who issued an order on Friday that prohibits the government from executing unconstitutional stops and arrests.
Government lawyers contend that this injunction is impeding the enforcement of federal immigration laws, stating in their motion, “These harms will be compounded the longer that injunction is in place.”
They have expressed concern that the judge’s injunction could lead to federal immigration enforcement becoming subject to judicial oversight, describing the order as “indefensible on every level.”
In light of Frimpong’s ruling, aggressive sweeps by heavily armed federal agents across regions including Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo counties appear to have ceased.
The injunction came after a coalition of civil rights groups and private attorneys initiated a lawsuit against the federal government, citing chaotic arrests that have created widespread fear and provoked significant protests since June 6.
ACLU of Southern California attorney Mohammad Tajsar highlighted the importance of the ruling, noting that the federal government is urgently seeking to appeal a decision that only asks them to adhere to the Constitution.
Despite the administration’s strong defense of its methods, Judge Frimpong ruled that using race, ethnicity, language, accent, location, or employment as a basis for immigration enforcement is in violation of the 4th Amendment, which safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
She indicated that these factors cannot be considered alone or combined to establish reasonable suspicion, which is the necessary legal standard to detain an individual.
In their motion, government lawyers dismissed this notion, asserting, “Ethnicity can be a factor supporting reasonable suspicion in appropriate circumstances — for instance, if agents are acting on a tip that identifies that ethnicity.”
They further argued that speaking Spanish, being present in certain locations, or one’s employment could serve as factors contributing to reasonable suspicion under specific circumstances.
Additionally, Judge Frimpong noted that denying detainees the opportunity to consult with lawyers breaches the right to due process guaranteed by the 5th Amendment.
She expressed incredulity over the federal government’s stance, commenting, “What the federal government would have this court believe — in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case — is that none of this is actually happening.”
During a news conference, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem inaccurately referred to Judge Frimpong as a man while criticizing her ruling, stating, “He’s an idiot.”
Despite this, Noem emphasized, “We have all the right in the world to go out on the streets and to uphold the law and to do what we’re going to do.
So none of our operations are going to change. We’re going to appeal it and we’re going to win.”
Alongside halting roaming patrols, the judge mandated that the Department of Homeland Security grant attorneys and legal aid organizations access to its downtown Los Angeles detention facility.
The Trump administration did not challenge this part of the ruling but focused instead on the 4th Amendment concerns, seeking a stay that would immediately restore normal operations for immigration agents in Southern California while awaiting appellate review.
The appeal articulated, “It is untenable for a district judge to single-handedly ‘restructure the operations’ of federal immigration enforcement.”
This judicial interference, the appeal claimed, must not be allowed to persist.
These arguments reflect a broader narrative pushed by the White House over recent months, wherein President Trump has aimed to substantially amplify the reach and power of the presidency.
However, experts suggest that the likelihood of success for this appeal is slim.
Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond, remarked, “Their argument [is] the sky’s falling.
They make very extreme arguments, and that doesn’t necessarily help their case in the 9th Circuit.”
The appeal adds another layer to an extensive legal conflict surrounding Trump’s intentions for mass deportations and the methods utilized for their implementation.
This legal turmoil extends to another injunction currently being contested in the Eastern District of California, stemming from incidents where Border Patrol agents halted and arrested numerous farmworkers and other laborers—many of whom were U.S. citizens—during an operation in the Central Valley in January.
The ACLU, representing the United Farm Workers and local residents, accused agents of employing racial profiling during stops near farms, at gas stations, and Home Depot locations.
Greg Bovino, Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, is also named in connection with this raid.
In a separate matter, California had successfully petitioned for a temporary restraining order limiting presidential command after troops were deployed to respond to anti-ICE protests in June.
That ruling was quickly blocked by an appellate panel and subsequently overturned in mid-June, maintaining the president’s control over the military presence.
The Trump appointee who penned the June 19 ruling, Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, challenged the government’s assertion that the president’s actions in this situation were beyond judicial review.
Ming Hsu Chen, a professor at UC Law San Francisco, noted, “Some of the things they say are unorthodox, arguments we don’t usually hear in court.”
Instead of labeling this a case of executive overreach, the government suggests that efforts to impose limitations on executive power by the judiciary represent judicial overreach.
Recently, a 9th Circuit judge called for a re-hearing of the June ruling with a larger “en banc” panel, a move that could elevate the case to the Supreme Court.
Professor Tobias indicated that the increasing politicization of the court system complicates predictions regarding how the judges will rule on this case.
Meanwhile, the state of California is amassing evidence to substantiate its claim that military involvement in immigration enforcement violates the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids soldiers from executing civilian laws.
In contrast to these broader issues, experts assert that the legal challenges surrounding the Los Angeles appeal are more straightforward.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean at UC Berkeley School of Law, elaborated, “What makes this case different is how much it’s based on facts.
It’s much harder for an appellate court to overturn a trial court finding of fact than it is regarding legal conclusions.”
image source from：latimes
