Blog

Legal Action Ends Biased Immigration Arrests in Southern California

In a decision that strengthens constitutional protections for immigrants, a federal judge in California has ordered a halt to certain immigration arrests carried out by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The ruling prohibits immigration enforcement based on race, language, location, or occupation—criteria the court found to be unconstitutional.

The decision, handed down by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, is the result of a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Southern California on behalf of several individuals and immigrant rights groups. The court determined that DHS, the FBI, and the Justice Department had participated in immigration operations that violated fundamental rights.

Court Concludes Arrests Were Made Without Probable Cause

According to evidence reviewed by the court, federal agents were conducting “roving patrols” that resulted in arrests without legitimate suspicion of wrongdoing. Judge Frimpong wrote in her opinion:

“This Court decides—based on all the evidence presented—that they are wrong”.

Government attorneys claimed the operations were based on “trend analysis,” not discriminatory profiling. But Judge Frimpong challenged that defense, stating:

“It’s hard for the court to believe you couldn’t find one case with a report of why someone was targeted”.

New Restrictions Imposed on Federal Agencies

The court's temporary restraining order prevents DHS and other federal authorities from continuing immigration stops or arrests based on:

• A person’s racial or ethnic background
• The language they speak or their accent
• Presence in certain public locations like bus stops
• Type of employment or job role

The judge also directed DHS to create new arrest procedures that require documented, reasonable suspicion based on objective evidence—not profiling.

Legal Access and Detention Conditions Also Addressed

The ruling also focused on the lack of legal access for individuals held in the federal “B-18” facility in Los Angeles. Detainees were allegedly denied the ability to call attorneys or receive legal visits and were kept in substandard conditions—without access to medical care, showers, or beds.

The judge ordered DHS to ensure all detainees are granted timely access to legal representation and humane treatment.

Strong Reactions Across Political Lines

The decision drew strong reactions from both critics and supporters. Tricia McLaughlin, a DHS spokesperson, criticized the judge’s ruling, stating:

“A district judge is undermining the will of the American people”.

On the other side, California Governor Gavin Newsom responded:

“California stands with the law and the Constitution — and I call on the Trump Administration to do the same”.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass also supported the ruling, calling it:

“An important step toward restoring safety, security and defending the rights of all Angelenos”.

And Mohammad Tajsar, senior staff attorney with ACLU of Southern California, emphasized the broader significance:

“No matter the color of their skin, what language they speak, or where they work, everyone is guaranteed constitutional rights to protect them from unlawful stops”.

Why This Ruling Matters

This case reflects ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement and the protection of civil rights. It also reinforces the idea that legal standards—like probable cause—must apply to everyone, regardless of their immigration status.

At StoneSilicosis.com, we stand for dignity, legal protection, and constitutional accountability—whether in the workplace or in our justice system.

Need help understanding your legal rights?
📞 Contact our network today 866-476-8111 or visit stonesilicosis.com/contact for assistance.

Source:
Kaanita Iyer, CNN, “Judge orders Trump administration to stop immigration arrests without probable cause in Southern California,” July 12, 2025.