Ninth Circuit Court Upholds Temporary Ban on Indiscriminate Immigration Stops in Southern California amid Constitutional Violation Allegations
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s temporary order on Friday night, blocking the federal government from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel heard arguments on Monday from the federal government seeking to overturn the initial ruling, which they contended hindered their enforcement of immigration law.
Immigrant advocacy groups filed a lawsuit last month, alleging that President Trump’s administration was systematically targeting individuals with brown skin in Southern California as part of its crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit listed three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs.
In her order, Judge Maame E. Frimpong stated there was substantial evidence suggesting that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She explained that the government could not use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a specific location like a tow yard or car wash, or someone’s occupation as the sole basis for reasonable suspicion to detain an individual.
The Los Angeles region has been a focal point of contention between the Trump administration and local communities due to the administration’s aggressive immigration strategy. Over several weeks, federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status from various locations such as Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms—many of whom have resided in the U.S. for decades.
One plaintiff, Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, was captured on video by a friend on June 13 being detained by federal agents while shouting, “I was born here in the states, East LA bro!”
ACLU attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court that the administration’s actions amounted to a policy where US citizens could be “grabbed, slammed against a fence and have their phone and ID taken from them just because they were working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood.”
The federal government argued that it hadn’t been given sufficient time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, as it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week.
Attorney Jacob Roth asserted, “It’s a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution.” He also contended that the lower court’s order was overly broad and that immigrant advocates failed to provide enough evidence demonstrating an official government policy targeting individuals without reasonable suspicion.
Roth argued that the four factors listed in the temporary restraining order—race, language, presence at a location, and occupation—should not be entirely prohibited for use by the government. He also expressed concerns about the order’s ambiguity regarding what is permissible under law.
“Legally, I think it’s appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,” Roth stated.
The judges raised questions about the federal government’s arguments. Judge Jennifer Sung pointed out that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up a significant portion of the population, those factors “cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.”
Sung also asked, “What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you’re already not doing?”