A federal appeals court has upheld a judge’s order restricting immigration enforcement tactics in Los Angeles. The ruling blocks agents from detaining individuals based solely on factors such as speaking Spanish, working as day laborers, or waiting at job sites, citing constitutional concerns over racial profiling and unlawful stops.
Court Restricts Use of Language and Job Type in Immigration Stops
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled Friday to leave in place a temporary restraining order limiting how immigration agents could initiate stops in Los Angeles. The ruling affirmed U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s July 11 order that barred agents from detaining individuals based solely on spoken language, perceived ethnicity, job type, or location.
The court rejected the federal government’s request to pause the order, finding it unlikely to succeed in its argument that the temporary restrictions on enforcement actions were unlawful. However, the court acknowledged a minor issue with vague language in the original order—specifically the phrase “except as permitted by law”—but declined to stay the ruling on that basis alone.
Legal Challenge Follows Controversial Enforcement Actions
The case stems from a lawsuit brought by a group of plaintiffs, including undocumented immigrants and U.S. citizens, who claimed that they were wrongfully stopped or detained by immigration officers. Among them were three individuals seeking day labor at a bus stop and two citizens who said that they were aggressively questioned despite identifying themselves as U.S. nationals.
Additional plaintiffs included advocacy organizations such as the United Farm Workers. They alleged that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) used discriminatory profiling to target immigrant communities in Los Angeles.
Judge Frimpong found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that immigration agents were conducting stops without reasonable suspicion and denying access to legal representation. Her order prohibited detentions based solely on race, language, job type, or presence at locations like bus stops and day laborer pickup sites.
Ruling Addresses Constitutional Concerns
The Ninth Circuit panel found that the government had not adequately addressed the constitutional implications of using profiling criteria for stops. It stated that relying solely—or even primarily—on the four identified factors did not meet the legal standard of reasonable suspicion required for lawful detentions.
The court wrote that the criteria- “describe only a broad profile,” did not justify suspecting someone of immigration violations in any specific case. The government also failed to “meaningfully dispute” the district court’s findings that such tactics were unconstitutional.
Political and Legal Fallout
The court’s ruling arrived amid escalating tensions over the Trump administration’s expanded enforcement operations.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the decision a “victory for the rule of law,” asserting that the restraining order has provided critical protection for city residents. California Governor Gavin Newsom also criticized federal enforcement tactics after the National Guard and Marines were deployed to support ICE operations in June.
Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary at DHS, denounced the ruling, accusing “unelected judges” of blocking the administration’s efforts to enforce immigration law. She maintained that DHS targeted only individuals lacking legal authorization to be in the U.S., regardless of race or ethnicity.
What’s Next? Broader Implications for Enforcement
The case is likely to have lasting consequences for how immigration enforcement is conducted in diverse urban areas. Legal experts said that the ruling reinforced constitutional protections against discriminatory policing and could shape future court challenges to similar operations nationwide.
While part of the restraining order was found to be vague, the core restrictions remained intact. Agents are still prohibited from using language, ethnicity, job type, or location as stand-alone reasons for detaining individuals in the Los Angeles area.
For timely updates and analysis on immigration enforcement and related immigration issues, visit ImmigrationQuestion.com. Get answers to your immigration questions from licensed immigration attorneys. For attorneys, use our innovative 2-in-1 case management software to grow your practice. Download our free app on Google Play and the Apple App Store.
Resources:
- https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/appeals-court-keeps-place-restrictions-immigration-stops-l-based-langu-rcna222611
- https://www.cbsnews.com/news/appeals-court-decision-keeps-restrictions-immigration-raids-los-angeles-area-trump/
- https://abc7.com/post/socal-ice-raids-appeals-court-keeps-order-blocking-trump-administration-indiscriminate-immigration-sweeps/17400025/
**ImmigrationQuestion.com is a third-party platform that serves as a meeting ground for licensed immigration attorneys and people with immigration questions. It is not a law firm. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by USCIS or AILA. Attorneys on this platform are independent and have the discretion to offer a free consultation and/or set their fees under the law.
