Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a temporary restraining order barring immigration agents from detaining individuals based solely on their language, job, or presence in certain public areas, in a major rebuke to tactics used in Trump administration immigration raids across Los Angeles.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left in place U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s July 11 order, which blocks Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agents from using criteria such as speaking Spanish, looking Latino, or waiting for work at bus stops or carwashes as the sole basis for detention.
“Defendants… are not likely to succeed on their remaining arguments,” the panel wrote, though it flagged one clause in the order — “except as permitted by law” — as vague. That portion of the order may require clarification but does not warrant a full stay, the court said.
The lawsuit prompting the ruling was filed by several individuals and organizations, including the United Farm Workers and legal aid groups, after ICE agents detained men waiting at a bus stop and allegedly harassed two U.S. citizens who had identified themselves. Plaintiffs argue these detentions were unlawful and discriminatory.
Judge Frimpong concluded that the government’s practices amounted to “roving patrols without reasonable suspicion” and found the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in proving constitutional violations.
The order prohibits immigration officers from making stops based solely on “apparent race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; presence at a particular location; or the type of work one does.”
In court filings, a top federal immigration official, Kyle Harvick, defended targeting places like carwashes and day laborer sites, saying “past experiences have demonstrated that illegal aliens utilize and seek work at these locations.”
But the appeals court firmly rejected that argument. “The four enumerated factors… even when considered together — describe only a broad profile and do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,” the panel ruled.
Government attorneys did not meaningfully contest the constitutional reasoning, the court noted. “They did not meaningfully dispute the district court’s conclusion that sole reliance on the four enumerated factors… does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion.”
A Broader Battle Over Immigration Tactics
The decision comes amid heightened tensions over Trump-era immigration crackdowns in Los Angeles, which have drawn strong criticism from local leaders. Mayor Karen Bass, a Democrat, called the ruling “a victory for the rule of law and for the City of Los Angeles.”
“These raids were unconstitutional, unsupported by evidence, and rooted in fear and harmful stereotypes,” said Mark Rosenbaum, senior counsel at Public Counsel, a group representing the plaintiffs.
The raids, which began in June, triggered mass protests across Los Angeles. In response, the Trump administration deployed National Guard troops and Marines to the city — a move condemned by Bass, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, and immigrant rights advocates.
In a statement Friday, DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin dismissed accusations of racial profiling and blamed “unelected judges” for “undermining the will of the American people.” She said enforcement is focused solely on individuals in the country unlawfully.
For now, the temporary restraining order remains in effect as litigation continues — setting the stage for a broader legal fight over the boundaries of immigration enforcement and civil liberties under the Trump administration’s aggressive tactics.
