Judge Signals Intent to Halt Trump Administration’s Immigration Raids in Southern California
A federal judge indicated Thursday she is likely to issue an order halting unlawful stops and arrests by the Trump administration in Southern California, actions advocates say have instilled fear in communities, forced individuals into hiding, and disrupted the local economy. A final order is expected Friday in the case, which has become central to the legal battle over the administration’s aggressive deportation policies.
The lawsuit, filed last week by immigrant rights groups, seeks to prevent federal agents from detaining individuals based solely on their appearance – specifically, targeting people with brown skin without establishing probable cause – and from holding them in what plaintiffs describe as “dungeon-like” conditions without access to legal representation.
During an hours-long hearing in a downtown Los Angeles federal courthouse, Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong shared a lengthy tentative ruling with attorneys, based on previous court submissions. While acknowledging tentative rulings are common, she stated her intention was to provide clarity on her assessment of the case. The ruling suggests Frimpong will grant two temporary restraining orders: one addressing the unlawful stops and arrests, and another ensuring detainees have access to legal counsel.
“It is truly a tentative ruling, it is not final,” Frimpong cautioned, adding that her perspective could evolve based on arguments presented Thursday afternoon. “My intention coming into this hearing, given the urgency and the weight of the matters at issue, is to issue my ruling tomorrow.”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Public Counsel, and other legal organizations brought the suit on behalf of several immigrant rights groups, three individuals detained at a bus stop, and two U.S. citizens – one of whom was held despite presenting valid identification. Throughout the hearing, Frimpong repeatedly challenged government lawyer Sean Skedzielewski regarding the lack of concrete evidence to counter accusations of indiscriminate targeting. She pressed him for details on the basis for the arrests, even as he maintained they were “sophisticated operations” focused on specific individuals.
Frimpong highlighted the standard practice in other law enforcement cases, where arrest reports detail the reasons for the detention, the location of the individual, and their actions. “There doesn’t seem to be anything like that here, which makes it difficult for the court to accept your description of what is happening, because there is no proof that that is what is happening as opposed to what the plaintiffs are saying is happening,” she stated.
Skedzielewski argued the absence of immediate evidence justified denying a temporary restraining order, explaining the government had only “a couple days” to identify those mentioned in the court filings. “We just haven’t had a chance to identify in many cases who the people stopped even were, let alone — over a holiday weekend — get ahold of the agents,” he said. Frimpong appeared unconvinced.
The judge, an appointee of President Biden, also questioned the government’s reliance on declarations from Kyle Harvick, a Border Patrol agent in charge of El Centro, and Andre Quinones, deputy field office director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, both key figures in the Southern California raids. She characterized their statements as “very general” and insufficient to address the “pretty high volume of evidence” presented by the plaintiffs, evidence mirroring reports widely circulated in the news. “If there’s any one of these people and there was a report about ‘this is how we identified this tow yard, parking lot and so on,’ that would have been helpful,” Frimpong said. “It’s hard for the court to believe that in the time that you had, you couldn’t have done that.”
Skedzielewski maintained that evidence of stops existed, but lacked proof of any legal violations by agents. He asserted the agents’ actions were “above board.”
Mohammad Tajsar, an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, argued that agents were improperly using a person’s workplace, location, or occupation as justification for stops. He cited the case of Brian Gavidia, a plaintiff detained by Border Patrol agents while outside a tow yard in Montebello, stating Gavidia was stopped “for no other reason than the fact that he’s Latino and was working at a tow yard” in a predominantly Latino area. “Because of this fundamental misunderstanding of the law from the government, we have seen so many unconstitutional and unlawful arrests,” Tajsar said. He also refuted the government’s claim of insufficient time, asserting, “they had time and they have all the evidence.”
This week, the city and county of Los Angeles, along with Pasadena, Montebello, Monterey Park, Santa Monica, Culver City, Pico Rivera, and West Hollywood, sought to join the lawsuit. In their filing, these municipalities argued the raids were not primarily focused on immigration enforcement, but were politically motivated “to make an example” of the region for implementing policies opposed by former President Donald J. Trump. They referenced a post on Trump’s social media platform calling for immigration officials to utilize “all in their power” to enact “the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History,” specifically targeting Los Angeles and other cities considered “the core of Democrat power.”
U.S. Department of Justice attorneys countered that the detentions were lawful and that any injunction should not be broadly applied, arguing the government has a “legitimate and significant interest” in enforcing immigration laws and that limitations would infringe on the President’s authority.
Since the operation began on June 6, immigration agents have arrested nearly 2,700 undocumented individuals, according to data released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Tuesday. The widespread arrests have significantly impacted areas with large immigrant populations, such as the Flower District downtown. The cities contend these “unlawful raids” are hindering their ability to perform essential law enforcement functions, forcing them to divert resources to determine whether armed individuals in unmarked vehicles are federal agents or criminals.
