In a significant judicial setback for the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Friday largely upheld restrictions on immigration arrests in the Los Angeles area. The ruling maintains a lower court’s order that federal immigration agents must have reasonable suspicion before detaining individuals and prohibits using race, ethnicity, language, location, or work as bases for stops and arrests.
The appeals court panel, composed of Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung, and Ronald M. Gould, agreed with U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong’s ruling that the “roving” immigration raids carried out across Southern California must meet constitutional standards under the Fourth Amendment. The judges noted the administration’s prior actions in Los Angeles often relied on broad profiles involving race, language, or perceived ethnicity, which do not satisfy the constitutional test for reasonable suspicion.
“We agree with the district court that, in the context of the Central District of California, the four enumerated factors—apparent race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, particular location, and type of work—describe only a broad profile and do not demonstrate reasonable suspicion for any particular stop,” the court stated. The Trump administration’s failure to dispute that decisive stops occurred based on these profiles further supported the continuation of the restrictions.
The legal battle arose after immigration raids earlier this year led to widespread protests in Los Angeles and heightened fears among immigrant communities, especially Latinos. Some protests escalated to violence, prompting the deployment of National Guard troops and U.S. Marines to protect federal buildings and agents enforcing immigration orders. The raids were part of the Trump administration’s broader mass deportation campaign, often involving Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents working beyond traditional border regions.
Judge Frimpong’s July injunction explicitly forbids federal agents from basing arrests or detentions on race, ethnicity, language spoken or accent, location, or occupation. This ruling responded to findings that the administration’s enforcement practices improperly targeted people based on these factors. According to the appeals court, the administration’s practice of using such generalized criteria likely violated individuals’ constitutional rights and thus the plaintiffs are “likely to succeed” on their claims against these practices.
The panel underscored that there is no prerequisite conduct required of individuals other than going about their daily activities to be at risk of questionable stops, highlighting the broad and discriminatory nature of the enforcement approach.
Experts observe that obtaining such Fourth Amendment injunctions is challenging because plaintiffs must show a likelihood of future harm well beyond past incidents. This ruling, therefore, represents a strong judicial check on the federal government’s immigration crackdown practices.
The Trump administration had requested a suspension of the lower court’s ruling but was denied by the appeals court, which maintained the temporary restraining order. While it is not immediately clear where the administration may appeal next, the ruling significantly limits federal immigration agents’ ability to conduct “roving” patrols and arrests in the Los Angeles metropolitan area without individualized suspicion.
The case remains ongoing with a hearing scheduled for September, as immigrant advocacy groups continue to challenge what they describe as unconstitutional sweeps in Southern California.