Judge halts Trump immigration arrests in California.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the recent surge in immigration enforcement actions by federal authorities appears to be driven by what the organization describes as an “arbitrary arrest quota.” The ACLU has expressed deep concern that such enforcement practices are not only lacking in transparency but are also being conducted without proper legal standards. The civil rights group argues that many of these actions are rooted in “broad stereotypes based on race or ethnicity,” resulting in the targeting of individuals solely because of their appearance, language, or perceived nationality. This, they claim, is a dangerous precedent that undermines constitutional protections and civil liberties guaranteed to all individuals, regardless of their immigration status. The ACLU points out that indiscriminate stops and arrests conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents often violate the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. They have called on courts and lawmakers to hold federal agencies accountable and ensure that immigration enforcement operates within the bounds of the law, free from racial profiling and unjustified detentions.
Los Angeles Judge Orders Trump Administration to Stop Indiscriminate Immigration Arrests in California
Los Angeles: In a powerful rebuke to the Trump administration’s immigration tactics, a federal judge on Friday ordered a halt to indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests across seven counties in California, including Los Angeles. The ruling followed a lawsuit filed by immigrant advocacy groups accusing the government of unfairly targeting Latino communities under the guise of immigration enforcement.
citizens — one of whom was held despite presenting valid identification to officers. The filing, submitted in U.S. District Court, accuses federal agents of using unconstitutional methods, such as racial profiling, warrantless arrests, and denying detainees access to legal representation.
Advocates say the raids have spread fear across Southern California, with immigration agents appearing at car washes, swap meets, Home Depot parking lots, and even immigration courts. Immigrants and Latino communities have been living in constant anxiety as enforcement actions grow more aggressive and seemingly arbitrary.
At the heart of the legal challenge is the charge that immigration officials are targeting people based primarily on how they look. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a leading plaintiff in the case, claims the wave of arrests is being fueled by an “arbitrary arrest quota” and is guided by “broad stereotypes based on race or ethnicity.”
Witnesses have reported incidents where federal agents detained anyone who “looked Hispanic,” ignoring other people in the same area who were not Latino.
ACLU attorney Mohammad Tajsar pointed to the case of Brian Gavidia, a U.S. “Brian did nothing wrong. He was just working — and Latino,” Tajsar said. “If race wasn’t a factor, why did they detain everyone at a car wash except the two white workers?”
The government, however, denies any wrongdoing. Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, dismissed the accusations in an email, calling them “disgusting and categorically FALSE.” She claimed that enforcement operations are “highly targeted,” and officers conduct careful background checks before making arrests.
Government attorney Sean Skedzielewski argued that immigration agents do not make arrests based solely on race, but instead consider the “totality of the circumstances,” including surveillance and field intelligence. He said agents often rely on “targeted, individualized packages” developed through investigations.
Still, the judge sided with the plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Maame E. Frimpong not only ordered an immediate stop to the indiscriminate arrests but also issued a separate ruling prohibiting the federal government from limiting attorney access to detainees at a facility in downtown LA, known as “B-18.”
Lawyers from the Immigrant Defenders Law Center and other legal aid groups say they’ve been repeatedly denied entry to B-18 since June, preventing them from providing crucial legal support to detainees. Attorney Mark Rosenbaum recounted a troubling scene on June 7, when he and others attempted to speak to a busload of detainees. “We were shouting out basic rights,” Rosenbaum said, “but drivers honked their horns to drown us out, and tear gas or something like it was used to disperse us.”
Skedzielewski countered that access was only restricted during periods of violent protest to protect staff and detainees, and that it has since been restored. But Rosenbaum insists lawyers were turned away even on quiet days with no protests nearby. He also criticized conditions inside the detention facility, claiming inadequate food, a shortage of beds, and limited phone access — all of which, he said, amounted to coercion, pressuring detainees into signing deportation agreements without consulting an attorney.
The legal challenge has drawn nationwide support. Attorneys general from 18 Democratic-led states have filed briefs backing the court’s decision, emphasizing the need for constitutional compliance in federal immigration enforcement.
This ruling builds on a previous court order from April, which barred U.S.
For now, Judge Frimpong’s ruling stands as a moment of relief for many across Southern California — especially those who have been living in fear. It’s a reminder that even in a time of uncertainty and division, the courts can serve as a check on power and a protector of civil rights.