by Vanguard Staff
A federal judge has issued two temporary restraining orders halting aggressive immigration enforcement operations in Los Angeles and surrounding counties, ruling that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) tactics likely violated constitutional protections against unlawful searches and the right to legal counsel.
The orders, issued Friday, come in response to a federal lawsuit filed by a coalition of immigrant rights groups, legal advocates, and impacted community members alleging that DHS and its sub-agencies—primarily Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—have been carrying out racially motivated raids, unlawfully detaining individuals, and denying them access to attorneys while being held in coercive and degrading conditions in a downtown Los Angeles federal facility known as B-18.
The first restraining order prohibits immigration agents from stopping individuals without reasonable suspicion and specifically bars the use of four criteria: race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, being present at particular locations such as car washes or agricultural fields, and the type of work an individual performs. The court found that relying on these factors—either alone or in combination—likely amounts to unconstitutional racial profiling. The second order mandates that DHS grant detained individuals access to legal counsel during weekdays, weekends, and holidays while in custody at B-18.
The legal complaint described a pattern of what plaintiffs called “abductions” by federal agents who appeared masked and heavily armed, targeting community members without warrants or probable cause. According to the lawsuit, detainees were taken to B-18 and held for extended periods without basic necessities like meals, bedding, or hygiene supplies, and were denied access to family or lawyers.
Civil rights attorneys representing the plaintiffs hailed the court’s decision as a historic and necessary rebuke of unchecked federal power. They argued that the federal government has acted with impunity, detaining low-wage workers—many of them Latino—in blatant violation of constitutional rights.
The lawsuit prompted a broad show of support. The City and County of Los Angeles, along with seven other municipalities, moved to intervene in the case to protect their residents. The State of California filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, arguing that the federal raids not only undermined public safety but also eroded community trust in law enforcement.
Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, said the restraining orders affirm that immigration enforcement must be held to constitutional standards. He described the federal agents as “marauding bands of masked, rifle-toting goons” and said the raids were an affront to basic civil liberties.
Annie Lai, director of the Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic at UC Irvine School of Law, emphasized that the ruling was made possible by grassroots organizing and the willingness of everyday people to challenge abuses of power. She called it an important milestone in a larger legal and moral fight to ensure equal justice for immigrant communities.
Mark Rosenbaum, senior special counsel at Public Counsel, underscored the significance of the ruling, stating that DHS cannot “fence off the Constitution” from immigrant communities in Southern California. He condemned the federal government for detaining car wash workers, nannies, and farm laborers in coercive conditions and said the ruling forces the federal government to operate within the bounds of the law.
United Farm Workers president Teresa Romero reminded the public that farm workers who rise before dawn to feed the country deserve protection—not profiling or terror. She said the court’s action sends a clear message that being brown and working hard should not make someone a target for government enforcement.
Community advocates also pointed to the broader atmosphere of fear stoked by the raids, arguing that entire neighborhoods had come under siege. Armando Gudino, executive director of the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, said people had been afraid to go to work, ride the bus, or take their children to school. He praised the court for placing limits on racial profiling and helping residents “breathe again.”
Alvaro Huerta, litigation director at Immigrant Defenders Law Center, described the government’s conduct as unconstitutional and cruel. He said the decision marks a turning point, forcing DHS to abandon “arrest-first, ask-questions-later” tactics that have sown terror in immigrant communities.
CHIRLA (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, L.A.) executive director Angelica Salas said the government’s actions were part of a racially motivated quota system and that the ruling proves no one is above the law—not even President Trump or his immigration enforcement apparatus. She emphasized that due process and access to counsel must be guaranteed to all.
The plaintiffs are represented by a broad coalition including the ACLU Foundations of Southern California, Northern California, and San Diego & Imperial Counties; Public Counsel; UC Irvine School of Law Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic; Immigrant Defenders Law Center; the Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin; the National Day Laborer Organizing Network; Hecker Fink LLP; Martinez Aguilasocho Law, Inc.; and CHIRLA.
