The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to lift a judge’s order that limits immigration raids in the Los Angeles area based on broad criteria such as speaking Spanish or gathering at locations day laborers often congregate.
Last month’s order by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong had effectively blocked what critics called “roving” immigration raids that ICE officers had been conducting across southern California. The raids targeted areas like bus stops, Home Depot parking lots and car washes.
Frimpong, a Biden appointee, ruled that the officers’ reliance on general factors — like limited English proficiency, line of work and location — fell short of a constitutional basis for ICE to have reasonable suspicion to make immigration arrests. The judge said agents could consider those factors but also needed individualized evidence that a person was in the country illegally in order to make an arrest.
Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift Frimpong’s order and grilled Trump administration lawyers about whether the mass arrests were driven by a White House-ordered quota to arrest 3,000 immigrants per day. Justice Department lawyers contended that no such quota had ever been ordered, despite public comments by White House adviser Stephen Miller suggesting Trump had endorsed the 3,000-per-day minimum in May.
In an emergency appeal filed with the Supreme Court Thursday, Solicitor General John Sauer defended the use of generalizations like language proficiency or field of employment to conduct sweeps seeking undocumented immigrants. In fact, Sauer argued that it could sometimes be acceptable to target someone for detention and questioning based solely on the factors Frimpong rejected as overbroad.
“Needless to say, no one thinks that speaking Spanish or working in construction always creates reasonable suspicion. Nor does anyone suggest those are the only factors federal agents ever consider. But in many situations, such factors — alone or in combination — can heighten the likelihood that someone is unlawfully present in the United States,” Sauer wrote. “Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are entitled to rely on these factors when ramping up enforcement of immigration laws in the District.”
Sauer called the temporary restraining order Frimpong issued on July 11 “a straitjacket” for law enforcement and said the ruling “defies” Supreme Court precedent.
The Trump administration’s emergency request came amid a volley of court rulings against some of the administration’s most aggressive deportation measures. A judge in California recently blocked the administration from canceling temporary protected status for 63,000 immigrants, saying it was rooted in racial animus. A judge in Washington, blocked the administration from deploying “expedited” deportation procedures for immigrants who had previously been paroled into the country. And another judge in Washington recently blocked the administration from a severe crackdown on asylum applicationsby people who crossed the southern border.
The Trump administration’s escalation of the legal fight also took place as fresh questions surfaced about whether the immigration officials are abiding by Frimpong’s order. On Wednesday, a local Fox TV affiliate broadcast video from inside a Penske rental truck used to raid a Home Depot parking lot in L.A.’s Westlake neighborhood. The station’s video showed immigration officers in camouflage abruptly jumping out of the truck and later depicted an immigration agent leading two Latino men through the lot by their collars.
An attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit that led to Frimpong’s order, said the group had been receiving reports since Saturday about raids that could run afoul of the judge’s directive.
“While we continue to investigate these incidents, the evidence available so far raises serious concerns that the federal government may be in violation of the federal judge's July temporary restraining order,” lawyer Mohammad Tajsar said in a statement. “As shown at every step in the case thus far, the government seems unwilling to fulfill the aims of its racist mass deportation agenda without breaking the law.”
So far, the ACLU has not complained to the court about the episodes, but Tajsar said it would do so “at the appropriate juncture.”
The Penske Corporation also issued a statement Wednesday complaining that its policies were violated during the raid. “Penske strictly prohibits the transportation of people in the cargo area of its vehicles under any circumstances,” the firm said on X. “The company was not made aware that its trucks would be used in today's operation and did not authorize this. Penske will reach out to DHS and reinforce its policy to avoid improper use of its vehicles in the future."
Comments