Key points:
- Trump administration asks US Supreme Court to lift temporary order on immigration stops.
- Order bars immigration agencies from stopping individuals based on race, ethnicity, or language.
- The district court is scheduled to hold a preliminary injunction hearing Sept. 24.
LOS ANGELES – The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to lift a temporary order that bars federal immigration agencies from conducting certain types of stops in Los Angeles and surrounding counties, a legal maneuver that has drawn an immediate and forceful response from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California.
The application, filed in Vasquez Perdomo v. Noem, asks the high court to stay a Central District of California injunction that prohibits immigration officers from stopping individuals based solely on four factors: apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or accented English, being present at certain locations where undocumented immigrants are known to gather, and the type of work performed.
The injunction applies to the entire district, home to roughly 20 million residents, including an estimated 2 million undocumented immigrants.
Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, condemned the administration’s request, saying the lower court’s order is a narrowly tailored protection against unconstitutional conduct.
“When masked, armed immigration agents abducted people off the streets of Southern California simply because they appear to be Latino or low-wage workers, the entire nation saw how the federal government’s reckless and cruel raids frayed the fabric of one of America’s most vibrant and diverse regions,” Tajsar said.
“The federal government has now gone running to the Supreme Court asking it to undo a narrow court order—applicable in only one judicial district—that merely compels them to follow the Constitution. We look forward to making our case to the Supreme Court that the federal government cannot deprive individuals of their liberty without justification, regardless of their immigration status.”
The underlying lawsuit was filed July 2 by five individuals who were stopped or arrested during the raids and four membership and legal service organizations, specifically the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, and the Immigrant Defenders Law Center.
They allege federal immigration agents engaged in a pattern of unlawful stops that violated the Fourth Amendment and deprived detained immigrants of due process and access to counsel.
Plaintiffs are represented by a coalition of legal and advocacy groups: the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, the Law Offices of Stacy Tolchin, UC Irvine School of Law’s Immigrant and Racial Justice Solidarity Clinic, Public Counsel, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, ACLU Foundations of Northern California and San Diego & Imperial Counties, Hecker Fink LLP, Martinez Aguilasocho Law, CHIRLA, and Immigrant Defenders Law Center.
The raids, which began in early June 2025, have been described by plaintiffs and immigrant rights advocates as part of a federal immigration dragnet unleashed under a White House-imposed quota of 3,000 arrests per day nationwide.
According to declarations filed in the case, immigration agents relied on perceived race or ethnicity, language, and location to decide whom to stop, conducted suspicionless street and worksite operations, and carried out warrantless home raids.
The district court found these practices likely unconstitutional and issued a temporary restraining order July 11 that remains in effect pending a September hearing on whether to impose a preliminary injunction.
The government’s stay application sharply challenges that ruling, arguing that the plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot show a realistic, imminent threat of being stopped again solely on the four prohibited factors.
Citing City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, government lawyers argue that past stops do not prove a likelihood of future harm and criticize the lower courts for relying on statistical probability rather than concrete evidence.
The Justice Department also contends that the lower courts misapplied Fourth Amendment law by creating a categorical rule barring reliance on the four factors. The government says reasonable suspicion is a low, context-dependent standard, and in the Central District’s enforcement environment—where an estimated 10 percent of residents are undocumented—the factors can be relevant in combination.
It warns that the injunction prevents agents from acting even in situations where the combination of language, job type, and location would otherwise be legitimate grounds for suspicion.
In addition, the administration argues that the injunction’s district-wide scope violates the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., which limits universal injunctions. The government says the order should apply only to the named plaintiffs and not to millions of nonparties.
It claims the broad relief severely hampers immigration enforcement in one of the nation’s busiest regions for such operations, risks contempt findings for lawful stops, and undermines executive branch priorities.
The case has drawn national attention because it highlights the clash between federal enforcement tactics under the Trump administration and constitutional limits on searches and seizures.
The ACLU and its allies argue that without judicial intervention, immigration enforcement in Southern California will continue to rely on discriminatory profiling and suspicionless stops that disproportionately target Latino residents and low-wage workers.
The Supreme Court has not yet indicated whether it will grant the government’s request for an immediate administrative stay while it considers the broader application. The district court is scheduled to hold a preliminary injunction hearing Sept. 24.
