Trump administration asks 9th Circuit for stay of Los Angeles judge's TRO barring ICE from racially targeting people

The Trump administration on Monday asked a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel to issue a stay pending appeal of a Los Angeles district judge's order barring U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from racially targeting people for detention and ensuring that detainees have access to attorneys.

The motion asks the appellate court for an administrative stay of an order issued Friday evening by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong of Los Angeles which a U.S. Department of Justice attorney wrote is "a first step toward an even more wholesale judicial usurpation" of the executive branch's authority.

"The result is a sweeping, district-wide injunction that threatens to hobble lawful immigration enforcement by hanging a Damocles sword of contempt over every immigration stop," DOJ Senior Counsel John W. Blakeley wrote, adding that Frimpong's order is "untenable." Vasquez Perdomo et al. v. Noem et al., 25-4312 (9th Circ., filed July 14, 2025).

Blakeley asked for an immediate administrative stay of Frimpong's temporary restraining order before the panel considers whether to grant a stay pending the federal government's appeal.

The TRO requires United States Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and federal agents to provide legal access to individuals detained at the Los Angeles federal building, and not to rely on an individual's race and ethnicity when making detention stops.

Frimpong, an appointee of President Joe Biden, said there were two pivotal questions she needed to decide.

"First, are the individuals and organizations who brought this lawsuit likely to succeed in proving that the federal government is indeed conducting roving patrols without reasonable suspicion and denying access to lawyers? This Court decides - based on all the evidence presented - that they are."

"And second, what should be done about it? The individuals and organizations who have brought this lawsuit have made a fairly modest request: that this Court order the federal government to stop," Frimpong wrote, going on to grant their request for a TRO.

The judge emphasized that her order is not a final determination on the merits of any of the plaintiffs' claims, but she expressed concern that the federal government was denying their Fourth Amendment rights with "roving patrols" and their Fifth Amendment rights by denying detainees right to counsel.

"What the government would have this Court believe - in the face of a mountain of evidence presented in this case - is that none of this is actually happening," Frimpong added.

Under the judge's order, federal agents could not rely as a reasonable basis for a "detentive" stop only on an individual's apparent race or ethnicity, the fact that they speak Spanish or English with an accent, their presence at sites such as a day laborer pick-up location, or the type of work they do.

Mohammed K. Tajsar, an attorney with the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, countered in a Monday brief to the 9th Circuit in defense of Frimpong's temporary restraining order, which applies only in the Central District of California.

"If Defendants are not engaging in a pattern of unlawful detentive stops predicated solely on the four factors the injunction forbids -- as they sometimes claim -- then they should have no difficulty obeying its terms while this Court considers their stay request," he wrote.

During a hearing Thursday, Frimpong heard arguments from attorneys who claimed federal officials - during the immigration raids in Los Angeles County - have been unlawfully using aggressive and racially motivated tactics to arrest people of Hispanic heritage and place them in "dungeon-like" holding cells without access to lawyers.

The case was initiated by a petition from the three arrested individual plaintiffs who claimed they were racially targeted and unlawfully detained without reason by armed and masked federal agents at a bus stop. Now a putative class action, the claims go after several federal officials for enforcing immigration searches and arrests which the plaintiffs say are unconstitutional.

Frimpong repeatedly questioned the government's evidence to reasonably identify why certain people were being targeted during the raids during the hearing.

U.S. Department of Justice attorney Sean Skedzielewski argued the operations were "sophisticated" and the "abusive practice" by the plaintiffs' counsel to file the applications a day before the Fourth of July weekend did not give the government enough time to build sufficient reports on those who were stopped.

However, Frimpong was not persuaded that that was enough to deny the plaintiffs' emergency requests.

"If ... there was a report about, 'This is how we identified this tow yard, parking lot and so on,' that would have been helpful. ... But it's hard for the court to believe that in the time that you had, you couldn't have done that," Frimpong told Skedzielewski during the hearing.

The judge also suggested the government's timing argument fell flat because of the "pretty high volume of evidence" that the plaintiffs' counsel was able to present in that same time frame.

Additionally, the plaintiffs' counsel argued that the detainees who were sent to B-18, an ICE detention center in Los Angeles, were subject to unlawful "dank basement" conditions that ultimately led to them being deprived of their right to speak with lawyers.

For example, Mark D. Rosenbaum of Public Counsel -- one of the plaintiffs' attorneys - said agents would constantly honk the horns of the transit vehicles to drown out the yells from nearby attorneys who were "shouting out basic rights" to the detainees.

In other instances, people who have not yet been identified fired chemicals at the feet of those lawyers to "make certain" the detainees did not know their access rights, Rosenbaum added.

Skedzielewski, for the government, argued those events were an isolated "emergency from a month ago" in response to a "severe" disruption of peace from nearby rioters.

He added the agents behaved the way they did to ensure the safety of the federal employees and detainees.

Skedzielewski also said the facility's operations were temporarily altered - including a temporary closure - for security reasons due to the civil unrest from violent protesters.

Rosenbaum opposed the government's "apocalyptic claim" and told Frimpong they could not "cry 'security," while ignoring other factors within the facility such as blocked egress and overcrowded cell blocks.

Frimpong ordered the U.S. Department of Justice and plaintiffs' attorneys to file a joint status report Wednesday to determine when to schedule a hearing on her order to show cause about why a preliminary injunction should not be granted against the government.

Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the judge's order in a statement Friday night.

""The Trump Administration is using federal immigration agents as a tool to instill fear and division in Los Angeles communities," he wrote. "In doing so, it is damaging community trust with law enforcement, disrupting Angelenos' daily lives, and impeding public safety."

U.S. Attorney Bilal A. "Bill" Essayli of Los Angeles wrote on X that: "We strongly disagree with the allegations in the lawsuit and maintain that our agents have never detained individuals without proper legal justification. Our federal agents will continue to enforce the law and abide by the U.S. Constitution."

In a separate constitutional case about the lawfulness of the government's immigration operations, U.S. District Judge Hernan D. Vera ruled in favor of a group of journalists who moved to temporarily restrain Los Angeles police officers from obstructing, detaining, or shooting non-lethal rounds at them during their raid coverage. Los Angeles Press Club et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., 2:25-cv-05423 (C.D. Cal., filed June 16, 2025).

The order, granted Thursday, will expire in 14 days, and a preliminary injunction motion on the matter will be heard by the judge on July 24.

On behalf of the Los Angeles Press Club and other media organizations, Santa Monica attorney Carol A. Sobel led arguments that the Department of Homeland Security ordered Los Angeles Police Department officers to violate the First Amendment by retaliating against journalists on the ground with excessive physical force.

"In total, plaintiffs have compiled at least 35 instances in which the LAPD excluded members of the media from public areas or used projectiles, tear gas, or other forms of force against them," Vera wrote.

The judge found these instances were sufficiently alleged, and the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims demonstrated a likelihood of success. Highlighted in the order were numerous alleged instances against "clearly identifiable members of the press," including a photojournalist who was shot in the head with a non-lethal round less than 10 feet from a line of officers.

"Defendants contend in the main that these media-related incidents in June are old news, and cavil that there is no upcoming 'emergency' to justify such an order. ... The court disagrees," Vera wrote.

"Indeed, given the fundamental nature of the speech interests involved and the almost daily protests throughout Southern California drawing media coverage, the identified harm is undoubtedly imminent and concrete."