By Vanguard Staff
Key points:
- Federal court issues temporary restraining orders against ICE and DHS.
- Ruling prohibits racial profiling during stops and denying access to legal counsel.
- ICE and DHS accused of targeting undocumented immigrants without legal basis.
LOS ANGELES — In a rebuke of federal immigration enforcement practices in Southern California, a federal court on Friday issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) that prohibit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from continuing tactics that the court found likely to violate the U.S. Constitution.
The ruling blocks the use of racial profiling during stops and mandates immediate access to legal counsel for detained immigrants, following weeks of reports of aggressive and secretive raids across the region.
The ruling comes in response to a lawsuit filed by community members, workers, and civil rights organizations who alleged that DHS had abducted and detained individuals without legal basis, relying on appearance, language, or job type to target suspected undocumented immigrants.
The suit details how people were taken from locations such as farms, car washes, bus stops, and even while commuting, without warrants or probable cause, and were denied access to legal counsel while being held in what attorneys described as inhumane conditions inside the federal B-18 building in downtown Los Angeles.
In her decision, U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong issued two TROs that collectively deliver a major legal blow to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the state.
The first order prohibits DHS from conducting stops without reasonable suspicion and forbids reliance on four commonly used, but constitutionally problematic, criteria: a person’s race or ethnicity; speaking Spanish or English with an accent; being in a particular public location like a car wash or agricultural field; or performing certain types of labor.
The court found that relying on such factors to conduct suspicionless stops violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.
The second order mandates that DHS provide detainees at the B-18 federal building access to legal counsel during all days of the week, including weekends and holidays. The court ruled that denying legal access, even temporarily, creates irreparable harm and violates long-established constitutional rights to counsel and due process.
In response to mounting community pressure and legal filings, both the City and County of Los Angeles, along with seven other municipalities, moved to intervene in the case, arguing that their residents were being unlawfully targeted. The state of California filed an amicus brief supporting the challenge, specifically backing the restraining order against suspicionless stops.
The ruling drew praise from civil rights advocates, immigrant rights groups, and labor leaders who have documented the raids’ impact on working-class communities throughout the region. Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, one of the lead organizations representing the plaintiffs, said the ruling affirmed that “marauding bands of masked, rifle-toting goons have been violating ordinary people’s rights throughout Southern California.” He described the decision as a critical step toward accountability and a return to the rule of law.
Annie Lai, director of the Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic at the UC Irvine School of Law, underscored the grassroots support behind the ruling. “Today’s ruling has been made possible by everyday people standing up for the idea that the Constitution is still the law of the land, and applies to all of us,” Lai said. “While this is only one step in what will undoubtedly be a long fight, it is an important one.”
Mark Rosenbaum, senior special counsel at Public Counsel, called the decision historic.
“The court ruled clearly that DHS’s unlawful and abusive practice of denying attorney access to car wash workers, nannies, and other hardworking community members rounded up and detained in cruel and coercive conditions—without beds, meals, or even minimal hygiene—must end immediately,” Rosenbaum said. “The question now for our federal government is whether it is prepared to conduct its operations under the rule of law. To date, the answer has been no.”
Workers’ rights organizations also welcomed the court’s ruling. Teresa Romero, president of United Farm Workers, emphasized the targeting of Latino laborers. “Farm workers rise before dawn to feed this country—there is no labor more dignified,” she said. “No one should be targeted, profiled, or terrorized for being brown and working hard. We are pleased the court recognized what’s at stake: the basic right to live and work without fear.”
Armando Gudino, executive director of the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, emphasized the everyday fear permeating immigrant communities.
“Our neighbors should not have to fear simply existing in public spaces, going to work, taking the bus, or dropping their kids off at school,” he said. “With this ruling, federal agents are bound by the law, not by racial profiling or political agendas. The message is clear: being Latino is not enough to stop someone.”
Attorneys who had tried to access detainees at the B-18 building detailed the extraordinary efforts required just to deliver legal services. Alvaro M. Huerta, director of litigation and advocacy at Immigrant Defenders Law Center, described how his staff faced repeated denials of entry and unlawful delays.
“Today’s decision clearly tells the federal government to stop violating the law,” he said. “Every person has the right to live, work, and participate in their community without having to fear DHS’ violent ‘arrest-first, ask-questions-later’ tactics. This ruling sends a powerful message: in Southern California, we will defend our communities, we will fight back against injustice, and we will win.”
Angelica Salas, executive director at the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, criticized the raids as racially motivated and driven by political objectives.
“Due process, access to counsel, dignity and respect were not afforded to our loved ones, our friends, our neighbors as ICE plowed through our community in their obsessive, racially motivated quest for quotas,” she said. “No one is above the law and today’s decision reaffirms that President Trump and all its immigration enforcement apparatus must follow the Constitution.”
The plaintiffs in Vasquez-Perdomo v. Noem are represented by a coalition of civil rights and immigrant advocacy groups, including the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, Public Counsel, UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic, Immigrant Defenders Law Center (ImmDef), the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA), Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin, Hecker Fink LLP, Martinez Aguilasocho Law, Inc., and ACLU Foundations of Northern California and San Diego & Imperial Counties.
