A federal judge on Friday ordered the Department of Homeland Security to immediately halt immigration arrests in Southern California that are not based on probable cause, ruling that detaining individuals based solely on race, language, or occupation is unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, a Biden appointee, issued the temporary restraining order in response to a lawsuit brought by the ACLU of Southern California on behalf of five individuals and several immigration advocacy groups.
The ruling applies across the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles and six surrounding counties. It requires DHS to develop new guidelines clarifying that reasonable suspicion for an immigration stop cannot rely on factors such as a person’s race, accent, employment, or presence at locations like bus stops.
“This Court decides—based on all the evidence presented—that they are conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers,” Judge Frimpong wrote.
The order also compels DHS, the FBI, and the Justice Department—also named as defendants in the case—to regularly document arrests and share records with the plaintiffs’ attorneys.
‘Deeply Troubling’ Enforcement Practices
The ACLU’s lawsuit alleged that federal agents were stopping individuals in the Los Angeles area based on racial profiling and not providing detainees access to legal counsel. In court Thursday, Judge Frimpong sharply questioned the government’s defense that arrests were based on “intelligence” rather than profiling.
“It’s hard for the court to believe you couldn’t find one case with a report of why someone was targeted,” Frimpong told government attorneys.
The judge also issued a separate order requiring that detainees held in the downtown Los Angeles facility known as “B-18” be granted access to lawyers through visits or phone calls. Advocates claimed individuals held there were being denied contact with legal counsel and kept in poor conditions—without beds, medical care, or proper sanitation.
Fallout and Reactions
A DHS spokesperson, Tricia McLaughlin, criticized the ruling, saying, “A district judge is undermining the will of the American people.”
President Trump has escalated immigration enforcement since returning to office, directing ICE to intensify deportations in liberal cities and deploying thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles last month following protests.
The administration has also sued the city of Los Angeles over its sanctuary policies.
In contrast, California officials praised the court’s decision. Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote on X, “California stands with the law and the Constitution — and I call on the Trump Administration to do the same.” L.A. Mayor Karen Bass called the ruling “an important step toward restoring safety, security and defending the rights of all Angelenos.”
Mohammad Tajsar, a senior attorney at ACLU SoCal, said the ruling sends a clear message:
“No matter the color of their skin, what language they speak, or where they work, everyone is guaranteed constitutional rights to protect them from unlawful stops.”
The case marks one of the most significant legal pushbacks against the Trump administration’s expanded use of immigration enforcement powers in California—and underscores the growing tension between federal authorities and local officials in the state.
