Restrictions on Los Angeles immigration arrests affirmed by appeals court
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Temporary Block on Immigration Arrests in Los Angeles
In a significant ruling on August 1-2, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a temporary restraining order that prevents federal immigration agents from conducting "roving patrols" or mass arrests in Southern California, including Los Angeles, without first having probable cause.
The court's decision is a response to a lawsuit filed last month by immigrant advocacy groups, who accused the Trump administration of unconstitutional sweeps in Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleged that the stops and arrests were based solely on race, ethnicity, language, location, or employment status, which violates the Fourth Amendment.
The panel of Ninth Circuit judges, Marsha S. Berzon, Jennifer Sung, and Ronald M. Gould, agreed with a lower court judge's finding that these stops and arrests cannot be based solely on the factors mentioned. The court's ruling states that immigration agents cannot use race, ethnicity, speaking Spanish, speaking English with an accent, location, or type of work as the basis for reasonable suspicion to stop people.
The court's ruling does not specify a time frame for the temporary block on immigration-related arrests in Los Angeles. It also does not dispute the district court's conclusion that the reliance on the mentioned factors "does not satisfy the constitutional requirement of reasonable suspicion."
The court found that the Trump administration did not dispute that definitive stops in Los Angeles have occurred based on the factors mentioned above. The ruling maintains protections against the Trump administration's immigration sweep tactics, which were accused of racial profiling, and bars masked, heavily armed agents from snatching people off the streets without sufficient cause.
The court's ruling is specific to the Central District of California and does not address any other locations beyond Los Angeles. A hearing in the case is scheduled for September.
Los Angeles officials, including Mayor Karen Bass, hailed the decision as a victory, praising it as a safeguard against racial profiling and fear in immigrant communities. The order was originally issued by U.S. District Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong and has been maintained by the Ninth Circuit, reinforcing a standard that requires federal agents to have a justified basis beyond race or ethnicity before making immigration arrests in the Los Angeles area.
[1] Los Angeles Times, "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds temporary block on immigration arrests in Los Angeles," August 2, 2025. [2] CNN, "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Trump administration's immigration sweeps in Los Angeles," August 2, 2025. [3] Associated Press, "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals blocks federal immigration agents from conducting arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause," August 2, 2025. [4] Washington Post, "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rules against Trump administration's immigration sweep tactics in Los Angeles," August 2, 2025. [5] NBC News, "Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds order blocking federal immigration agents from conducting arrests in Los Angeles without probable cause," August 2, 2025.
- The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling against the Trump administration's immigration sweeps in Los Angeles highlights the ongoing politics surrounding immigration policy-and-legislation in the United States, as the case raises questions about general news and hotly debated issues like racial profiling and the constitutional rights of immigrants.
- The court's decision to maintain protections against the Trump administration's immigration sweep tactics in Los Angeles encourages ongoing discussions on health issues associated with immigration policies, particularly the potential emotional toll and fear experienced by immigrant communities under immigration enforcement.
- As the case against the Trump administration's immigration sweeps in Los Angeles progresses and the district court's conclusion is upheld, the implications of the court's ruling will likely extend beyond the realm of immigration policy-and-legislation to broader discussions on human rights, racial equality, and the role of politics in protecting marginalized populations.
