Government lawyers have argued that the district judge’s restraining order caused restraints on lawful immigration enforcement.
A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a lower court ruling that barred federal agents from carrying out immigration stops and arrests targeting illegal immigrants without probable cause in Los Angeles.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected an emergency motion filed by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to stay a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong on July 11.
The restraining order, issued in response to a lawsuit brought by illegal immigrant advocacy groups, prohibits DHS from detaining individuals based on their race, spoken language or accent, occupation, or presence in specific locations such as bus stops.
In a 61-page ruling, the three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Frimpong’s decision as the judges determined that the government is unlikely to succeed on most of its arguments.
However, the panel agreed with DHS that the order’s clause, which prohibits federal agents from carrying out detentive stops based on certain factors “except as permitted by law,” was vague.
The panel stated that the phrase “permitted by law” in the restraining order is unclear even to lawyers and judges, let alone “lay persons who are the target of the injunction.”
“We therefore conclude that defendants are likely to succeed on the merits as to that specific clause. Defendants, however, are not likely to succeed on their remaining arguments,” the judges said.
Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass welcomed the appeals court’s ruling, calling it a victory for the city.
“The temporary restraining order to stop unconstitutional and reckless raids has been upheld. This is a victory for Los Angeles—I will ALWAYS fight for our city,” Bass stated on X.
Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney at the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, which represents the plaintiffs, said in a statement that the ruling confirmed the federal immigration operations “violated the Constitution and caused irreparable injury across the region.”
DHS did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.
In the DHS’s July 14 argument to the Ninth Circuit, the lawyers said Frimpong imposed a “sweeping, district-wide injunction” that placed restraints on lawful immigration enforcement affecting every immigration stop and detention.
