The Trump administration is misinterpreting both legal precedent and a federal judge’s ruling in an effort to justify warrantless immigration raids in California, attorneys with the ACLU argued in a court filing Monday — warning that the government’s approach amounts to “unrestrained demographic profiling” in violation of constitutional rights.
In a strongly worded response submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, the ACLU and several immigrant rights groups pushed back against the Department of Justice’s emergency request to pause a temporary restraining order that blocks ICE from conducting “roving” immigration sweeps across Los Angeles.
The order, issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong on July 11, prohibits ICE agents from stopping and detaining individuals solely on suspicion of being unlawfully present in the U.S. — a practice that, according to the plaintiffs, disproportionately targets Spanish-speaking individuals and people of color without probable cause.
“Their motion is based on a misreading of the order and applicable law,” the ACLU’s filing said. “It identifies no legitimate harm that could justify the extraordinary relief they seek.”
The Justice Department has argued that the injunction could cause “irreparable harm” by hindering immigration enforcement efforts, and labeled the judge’s order “confusing” — saying it may deter lawful enforcement. But the ACLU rejected that assertion outright, noting that the government has provided no concrete evidence that the injunction has actually impaired ICE’s ability to do its job.
“If the government is not relying on racial profiling to establish reasonable suspicion, then it should have little trouble complying with the order,” the groups said. “If it is — as the evidence suggests — then the order is entirely necessary.”
The underlying lawsuit was filed last year on behalf of individuals allegedly detained without warrants or probable cause during ICE raids in Southern California. The plaintiffs allege they were stopped while simply standing at bus stops or working, targeted only because they were non-White and spoke Spanish.
In its stay motion, the DOJ introduced a new declaration claiming the arrests were tied to surveillance of suspected employers of undocumented workers — but immigration attorneys say that explanation fails to justify the detention of unrelated individuals in public spaces.
“It cannot be that a non-White, Spanish-speaking person’s mere presence at a bus stop — where someone associated with different individuals was once seen — justifies a loss of liberty,” the opposition brief states. “And indeed, that is not the law.”
The ACLU further criticized the administration’s core legal premise — that simply being forced to defend a preliminary injunction in court amounts to irreparable harm. “They cite no case law to support this novel idea,” the filing says.
The dispute comes as the Trump administration ramps up immigration enforcement efforts and seeks broader authority for ICE to conduct operations without judicial oversight. The case is now before the 9th Circuit, which will decide whether to keep Judge Frimpong’s order in place during the appeals process.
“The district court reviewed a mountain of evidence showing ICE routinely violated the Fourth Amendment,” the ACLU wrote. “The government didn’t refute it. This court should leave the order intact.”
