Judge Frimpong: Blocks Race-Based ICE Stops in LA County

• U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong tentatively granted a preliminary injunction to block ICE agents from making race-based stops in Los Angeles County.
• This decision follows a previous temporary restraining order by Judge Frimpong that was paused by the Supreme Court, but new evidence, including body camera footage, has since been presented.
• Plaintiffs, including the ACLU of Southern California, argue that ICE agents target individuals based on their Latino ethnicity and perceived socioeconomic status.
• The judge questioned whether the Supreme Court's earlier pause was due to insufficient evidence at the time.
• A separate, recent injunction by Judge Frimpong also restricts warrant-less civil immigration arrests unless probable cause for unlawful presence and flight risk is established.

Together, these judicial actions by Judge Frimpong underscore a growing legal scrutiny over the methods and justifications employed by immigration enforcement agencies in Southern California, providing a stronger basis for client defense in LA County and reinforcing constitutional rights.

A federal judge in Los Angeles has signaled her intent to issue a significant preliminary injunction aimed at preventing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from conducting stops based solely on an individual's race within Los Angeles County. U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, a Biden appointee, tentatively granted the request brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the United Farm Workers, and other advocacy groups. This move comes despite a previous temporary restraining order (TRO) she issued last year, which was ultimately paused by the U.S. Supreme Court, indicating the judge's conviction that new evidence supports the need for ongoing protective measures.

The initial temporary restraining order, issued by Judge Frimpong last year, sought to curb what plaintiffs described as constitutional rights violations by ICE agents, who often operated masked and in unmarked vehicles. These actions were reportedly part of an extensive immigration crackdown initiated by the Trump administration in Southern California, disproportionately affecting working-class Latinos. While the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had previously declined the government's request to halt that TRO, the nation's highest court intervened a year ago, putting the temporary measure on hold.

Despite the Supreme Court's previous intervention, Judge Frimpong was not swayed from considering the preliminary injunction. Her decision reflects a belief that the legal landscape and available evidence have evolved since the Supreme Court's pause. The tentative ruling, which was not publicly released, indicates a robust judicial response to allegations of racial profiling in immigration enforcement.

During the recent hearing, the U.S. Justice Department, represented by attorney Daniel Mummolo, urged Judge Frimpong to adhere to the Supreme Court's prior guidance. Justice Brett Kavanaugh had previously observed that the plaintiffs might lack standing for a broad injunction against investigative stops, suggesting they were unlikely to face future harm. Mummolo echoed this sentiment, arguing that the record showed little evidence of imminent threat to the plaintiffs, citing very few instances where individuals had been stopped multiple times by ICE agents.

However, Judge Frimpong highlighted that the plaintiffs had amassed additional evidence since the Supreme Court's decision last year. This new material includes depositions from immigration agents and officials, alongside body camera footage, which bolsters their claims that Latinos are being targeted by ICE based purely on their ethnicity, rather than on reasonable suspicion of being unlawfully present in the country. The judge directly questioned the government's lawyer, suggesting that the Supreme Court's original stay of the TRO might have been due to an insufficient evidentiary record at that time.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs, including Anne Lai of the UC Irvine Law Clinic, asserted that ICE's policy has "race at its core." They contend that agents continue to operate throughout Southern California, armed and masked, apprehending both citizens and noncitizens based on a demographic profile deemed "suspicious"—specifically, individuals who appear Latino and are perceived as low-income or working class. Sara Worth, another attorney for the plaintiffs, further argued that so-called "targeted operations," ostensibly aimed at finding specific individuals, are often pretextual. She claimed agents would stop any Latino-looking person, even if they bore no resemblance to the target, and then cite mistaken identity as justification.

The primary focus of the hearing ultimately shifted to refining the specifics of the preliminary injunction that Judge Frimpong had outlined in her tentative decision. This judicial oversight signals a continued effort to ensure that immigration enforcement practices align with constitutional protections, particularly concerning racial profiling. The potential injunction, once finalized, would significantly impact ICE operations in Los Angeles County, strengthening legal challenges against stops and arrests perceived as discriminatory.

This development follows another recent preliminary injunction issued by Judge Frimpong earlier this month. That separate order prohibits ICE agents from conducting civil immigration arrests without a warrant unless they first determine there is probable cause that the individual is unlawfully present and also likely to escape. Together, these judicial actions by Judge Frimpong underscore a growing legal scrutiny over the methods and justifications employed by immigration enforcement agencies in Southern California, providing a stronger basis for client defense in LA County and reinforcing constitutional rights.

Immigration lawyers in Southern California should be aware that this preliminary injunction strengthens legal grounds to challenge ICE stops and arrests based on racial profiling or lack of probable cause, providing a stronger basis for client defense in LA County.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service