The Trump administration is pushing back against a federal judge’s recent restraining order that limits how U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) can operate in the Los Angeles area, calling the court’s decision a “straightjacket injunction” that could cripple lawful immigration enforcement.
In a new court filing on Monday, Trump officials requested an immediate stay of the order, arguing that it imposes sweeping restrictions on ICE’s ability to stop and detain individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. The order, issued Friday by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, bars ICE from making detentions in California’s Central District unless agents have “reasonable suspicion” — and forbids relying on factors such as race, ethnicity, language, or location as sole justifications.
The administration sharply criticized the ruling, claiming it risks undermining immigration enforcement altogether.
“The result is a sweeping, district-wide injunction that threatens to paralyze lawful immigration enforcement,” the filing stated, warning that ICE agents could face contempt charges for performing routine duties. Officials also accused the plaintiffs of “manipulating” the judicial process to fast-track the order just before the July 4 holiday weekend.
Legal Clash Over Enforcement Tactics
The lawsuit was initially brought by three detainees seeking release from ICE custody, but quickly expanded to include additional individuals and advocacy groups challenging ICE’s broader practices in the region. Judge Frimpong — a Biden appointee — sided with the plaintiffs, finding that ICE’s conduct likely violated Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures.
The court’s order comes as immigration enforcement remains a central issue in President Trump’s second-term agenda. California, a longtime legal battleground between federal immigration authorities and local sanctuary policies, is again at the heart of the conflict.
“It is untenable for a single district judge to restructure the operations of federal immigration enforcement,” the administration wrote, citing concerns over executive authority and separation of powers.
Critics Applaud Restraining Order
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass praised the ruling, calling ICE’s actions under Trump “reckless and unconstitutional.” Immigration advocacy groups and local governments — including the cities of Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Culver City, and West Hollywood — joined the lawsuit and welcomed the decision. Democrat-led states have also filed amicus briefs in support.
Plaintiffs in the case alleged that ICE officers conducted mass arrests at locations like car washes, farms, and Home Depot parking lots — often targeting individuals solely based on their appearance or language, with no clear legal justification. In some instances, they say U.S. citizens were mistakenly detained.
Attorneys argued that ICE was under pressure to meet an internal quota of 3,000 arrests per day, leading officers to bypass constitutional safeguards in order to hit their numbers.
Trump Administration Denies Misconduct
The Department of Justice, defending ICE’s actions, strongly disputed the allegations and denied that any constitutional violations occurred. Officials say nearly 3,000 immigration-related arrests have taken place across California since early June, all of which they insist were conducted lawfully.
Judge Frimpong’s order stops short of a nationwide injunction, applying only to ICE operations in the Central District of California. Still, the Trump administration argues it sets a dangerous precedent.
“This isn’t just a legal misstep — it’s a direct interference with the executive branch’s authority to enforce immigration laws,” the administration warned.
Frimpong has defended her decision as a necessary safeguard against potential civil rights violations. “It’s important for the court not to burden otherwise lawful law enforcement activities,” she said during a recent hearing, but emphasized that enforcement must still comply with constitutional standards.
The case is now heading toward an appeals process that could have far-reaching implications for federal immigration enforcement not just in California, but nationwide.
