LOS ANGELES — In a significant legal setback to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement strategy, a federal appeals court on Friday upheld a temporary restraining order that limits the ability of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to conduct indiscriminate immigration arrests across Southern California. The ruling sustains judicial restrictions that prevent ICE from carrying out so-called ‘roving patrols’—stops and detentions without reasonable suspicion—across much of the Los Angeles area and beyond.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided unanimously to affirm a lower court injunction that barred masked and heavily armed ICE agents from arresting individuals solely based on factors such as race, ethnicity, language abilities, location, or employment status without establishing reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. The court noted that such restrictions are grounded in the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
“If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,” the appeals court wrote. The panel, consisting of Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung, and Ronald M. Gould, agreed with the evidence that individuals are vulnerable to being stopped simply due to the normal activities of everyday life, which would be unacceptable under constitutional protections.
The case stems from months of heightened ICE raids and arrests in the Los Angeles region and broader Southern California, escalating tensions and fears among immigrant communities. These efforts are part of the Trump administration’s expanded attempts to increase deportations nationwide. Local law enforcement, including the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), had been criticized for how cooperation with ICE—particularly the sharing of immigrant fingerprints—has facilitated targeted immigration arrests despite official policies restricting cooperation.
One notable example is the case of Jose Juarez-Basilio, an undocumented Mexican immigrant who was released after less than 24 hours in jail following an LAPD arrest on a domestic allegation earlier this year. Though no charges were filed, his fingerprints had been shared with ICE, which later led to his deportation. Incidents like his highlight the complex dynamics between local police and federal immigration authorities.
Los Angeles city officials and immigrant rights advocates welcomed the ruling as a victory for civil liberties. Mayor Karen Bass emphasized that the court’s decision sends a strong message protecting constitutional rights and public safety by preventing racial profiling and ensuring that law enforcement cannot detain individuals without factual basis.
Legal experts note that while temporary restraining orders are difficult to obtain and sustain, the courts’ recognition of potential constitutional violations here marks an important precedent. Loyola Law School Professor Jessica Levinson remarked on plans to pursue longer-lasting judicial relief, including preliminary and permanent injunctions, to establish clear constitutional limits on how immigration laws are enforced in California.
The Trump administration quickly indicated its intention to challenge the ruling, but the appeals court’s firm language and endorsement of the lower court’s reasoning suggest a substantial judicial barrier to the administration’s current deportation practices.
For now, the ruling maintains protections for immigrants and residents in Southern California from indiscriminate patrols and stops that lack a reasonable and constitutionally permissible basis. The legal battle is expected to continue, underscoring the broader national debate over immigration enforcement and civil rights.